DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
3. The applicant’s response dated 11 February 2026 has been entered into the record and is considered fully responsive. Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are currently pending and under examination. Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 were previously cancelled by the applicant. The amendments to Claim1 and Claim 11 did not add any new matter as indicated in the applicant’s remarks on pg. 5-6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Li et al., Seroka et al., and Wang et al.
Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0018055A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a nanocomposite force sensing material (Title). Seroka et al. (“Application of functionalized MXene-carbon nanoparticle-polymer composites in resistive hydrostatic pressure sensors” SN Applied Sci. 2020, 2, article 413 – previously presented) discloses a sensor (Section 3.5.: pressure sensor performance). Wang et al. (“Surface Charge Engineering for Covalently Assembly Three-Dimensional MXene Network for All-Climate Sodium Ion Batteries,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 39181-39194 – previously presented) is directed toward a 3D network made of polyaniline and titanium carbide (pg. 39181: abstract).
Regarding Claim 1, Li et al. discloses a sensor (¶93-100) comprising: a force-sensing material (Abstract and FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B) including a conductive filler dispersed in a polymer matrix (¶4, ¶28, ¶45 and Claim 1; e.g.: an epoxy resin at per Ex. 1); and two or more electrodes at a spaced location of the force-sensing material as depicted in FIG. 2 of Li et al. The conductive filler in Li et al. is comprised of metal particles (¶50), carbon-based materials (¶51), and conductive polymers (¶55). In Example 1, Li et al. indicates that the conductive filler ranges from 15 to 25 vol.% (with remainder being epoxy resin) in ¶103. However, Li et al. does not disclose the use of MXene particles as conductive fillers for force-sensing materials.
Seroka et al. is directed toward a force-sensing material that generally teaches said force-sensing material is comprised of MXene particles, carbon nanoparticles, and conductive polymers as described in Section 2.4 (Polymer nanocomposite preparation) which is analogous to the conductive filler in Li et al. Seroka et al. further teaches that the force-sensing material undergoes changes in resistivity when pressure is applied to said material (Section: 3.5 Pressure sensor performance) analogous to the force sensing material in Li et al.
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png]
FIG. 1A. Electrodes on substrate sensing material in Li et al. without applied force
[img-media_image2.png]
FIG. 1B : Electrodes on substrate sensing material in Li et al. with applied force causing change in resistance (RG1))][AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image3.png]
FIG. 2: Incorporation of force sensing material into Wheatstone bridge
from Li et al. )]
However, the combination of Li et al. and Seroka et al. does not disclose a conductive filler comprised of a mixture of polyaniline and MXene forming a 3D network from the opposite surface charges on the MXene and PANI.
Wang et al. indicates there is a need to develop MXene composites which still have high electrical conductivity when organic molecules are intercalated into the MXene 2-D sheets (pg. 39181: Introduction). Wang et al. further indicates that the MXene sheets (e.g.: exfoliated Ti3C2Tx) which are treated with acidic and fluoride are highly negatively charged (pg. 39183: Results and Discussion). In the synthesis of the hierarchically porous 3D PANI/Ti3C2Tx network, aniline was added to the exfoliated Ti3C2Tx which adsorbed the positively charged aniline resulting in the polymerization of aniline to form positively charged PANI on the surface of the negatively charged Ti3C2Tx and PANI also intercalated between layers of Ti3C2Tx during the polymerization as per the Results and Discussion section on pg. 39183. This 3D arrangement results in a highly conductive Ti3C2Tx nanosheets can serve as 2D electron-transfer platforms, guaranteeing the excellent electrical conductivity in PANI/ Ti3C2Tx network (pg. 39190: Results and Discussion).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the force sensing epoxy film of Li et al. by using a conductive filler comprised of PANI and Ti3C2Tx as taught by Seroka et al. and Wang et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a sensor that is operable over a wide range of applied pressure/force and the sensor has both rapid response and recovery times (Seroka et al. in the abstract) with very efficient charge transfer (Wang et al. pg. 39189: Results and Discussion and Fig. 7).
Li et al. discloses a range of 15 vol.% to 25 vol.% of conductive filler as per Example 1 (¶102-¶104) meaning polymer matrix (e.g.: the epoxy resin) ranges from 85 vol.% to 75 vol.%., respectively. Wang et al. indicated that the optimized PANI-MXene composite is 10.1 wt.% PANI and 89.9 wt.% MXene. The weight% of conductive filler taught by the combination of Li et al, Seroka et al, and Wang et al. is derived in the block below. Said combination of reference discloses the conductive filler ranges from 32.9 wt.% to 48.1 wt.%. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, i.e.: the amount of conductive filler is at least 20 wt.% based on the total weight of the sensing material. See MPEP 2144.05(I) – Overlapping, Approaching, and Similar Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Calculation Block: Weight % of Conductive Filler in Claim 1.
Densities of Components of Force-Sensing Material
Density of Epoxy resin: 1.25 g/mL
Density of MXene (Ti3C2): 4.21 g/mL
Density of PANI: 1.36 g/mL
Optimized conductive filler weight conversion to volume
Assume 100 g of conductive filler
10.1 g PANI x (1 mL/1.36 g) = 7.4 mL PANI [Wingdings font/0xE0] 7.4 mL/28.8 mL = 25.7 vol. % PANI
89.9 g MXene x (1 mL/4.21 g) = 21.4 mL MXene [Wingdings font/0xE0] 21.4 mL/28.8 mL = 74.3 vol.% MXene
Total volume in 100 g conductive filler = 7.4 mL + 21.4 mL = 28.8 mL
Volume Compositions using Ratios in Li et al. Ex. 1
Assume 100 mL of force sensing composite
First Endpoint: 15 mL of conductive filler and 85 mL of epoxy resin
Second Endpoint: 25 mL of conductive filler and 75 mL of epoxy resin
First End Point Volume to Weight Conversions
85 mL of epoxy [Wingdings font/0xE0] 85 mL epoxy x (1.25 g/mL) = 106.3 g epoxy
25.7 vol.% PANI x 15 mL = 3.85 mL PANI [Wingdings font/0xE0] 3.84 mL x (1.36 g/mL) = 5.22 g PANI
74.3 vol.% MXene x 15 mL = 11.15 mL MXene [Wingdings font/0xE0] 11.15 mL x (4.21 g/mL) = 46.9 g MXene
Total Mass in 100 mL conductive filler = 106.3 g + 5.22 g + 46.9 g = 158.4 g
Weight % Conductive Filler = (5.22 g + 46.9 g)/158.4 g = 32.9 wt. % conductive filler
Second End Point Volume to Weight Conversions
75 mL of epoxy [Wingdings font/0xE0] 75 mL epoxy x (1.25 g/mL) = 93.8 g epoxy
25.7 vol.% PANI x 25 mL = 6.43 mL PANI [Wingdings font/0xE0] 6.43 mL x (1.36 g/mL) = 8.74 g PANI
74.3 vol.% MXene x 25 mL = 18.58 mL MXene [Wingdings font/0xE0] 18.58 mL x (4.21 g/mL) = 78.2 g MXene
Total Mass in 100 mL conductive filler = 93.8 g + 8.74 g + 78.2 g = 180.8 g
Weight % Conductive Filler = (8.74 g + 78.22)/180.76 g = 48.1 wt. % conductive filler
The combination of Li et al., Seroka et al., and Wang et al. teaches the conductive filler ranges from 32.9 wt.% to 48.1 wt.% of the force sensing material
Regarding the amendment to Claim 1, the combination of references discloses a material that has electrical conductivity in three-dimensional space. The use of the MXene/polyaniline material in sodium ion batteries as indicated in Wang et al. would require that the material described by the combination of references can undergo reversible changes in microstructure as the sodium ions are intercalated and de-intercalated leading to a change in volume and cyclic mechanical stress. Moreover, the intercalation and de-intercalation will change the electrical resistance of the material described by the combination of references. Alternatively, the applicant’s own disclosure supports that the 3D structure formed from the interaction between the negatively charged Ti3C2Tx and positively charged PANI dispersed in an epoxy matrix would inherently be configured to undergo reversible microstructural rearrangement under cyclic mechanical strain, thereby producing a corresponding change in electrical resistance supported by at least ¶8 and ¶17 (cited as US Pub. No. 2022/0315774 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Li et al., Seroka et al, and Wang et al. disclose the sensor of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of MXene particles include Ti3C2 as evidenced by the use of Ti3C2Tx nanosheets of Wang et al. which were prepared by the acidic fluoride treatment of Ti3AlC2 (Wang et al. – pg. 39182: 2.1 Synthesis of Ti3C2Tx Nanosheets).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Li et al., Seroka et al., and Wang et al. disclose the sensor of Claim 1, wherein the force-sensing material is free of any metal fillers as evidenced by the conductive filler comprising etched Ti3C2Tx and PANI from Wang et al. (pg. 39182: 2.2. Preparation of the 3-D PANI/Ti3C2Tx Network) and polymer matrix being an epoxy resin as per Ex. 1 in Li et al. (¶103).
Regarding Claim 11, Li et al. discloses a force-sensing material (Abstract and FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B) including a conductive filler dispersed in an epoxy polymer matrix (¶4, ¶28, ¶45 and Claim 1, and Ex. 1). The conductive filler in Li et al. is comprised of metal particles (¶50), carbon-based materials (¶51), and conductive polymers (¶55). In Example 1, Li et al. indicates that the conductive filler ranges from 15 to 25 vol.% (with remainder being epoxy resin) in ¶103. However, Li et al. does not disclose the use of MXene particles as conductive fillers for force-sensing materials.
Seroka et al. is directed toward a force-sensing material that generally teaches said force-sensing material is comprised of MXene particle, carbon nanoparticles, and conductive polymers as described in Section 2.4 (Polymer nanocomposite preparation) which is analogous to the conductive filler in Li et al. Seroka et al. further teaches that the force-sensing material undergoes changes in resistivity when pressure is applied to said material (Section: 3.5 Pressure sensor performance) analogous to the force sensing material in Li et al. However, the combination of Li et al. and Seroka et al. does not disclose a conductive filler comprised of a mixture of polyaniline and MXene forming a 3D network from the opposite surface charges on the MXene and PANI.
Wang et al. indicates there is a need to develop MXene composites which still have high electrical conductivity when organic molecules are intercalated into the MXene 2-D sheets (pg. 39181: Introduction). Wang et al. further indicates that the MXene sheets (e.g.: exfoliated Ti3C2Tx) which are treated with acidic and fluoride are highly negatively charged (pg. 39183: Results and Discussion). In the synthesis of the hierarchically porous 3D PANI/Ti3C2Tx network, aniline was added to the exfoliated Ti3C2Tx which adsorbed the positively charged aniline resulting in the polymerization of aniline to form positively charged PANI on the surface of the negatively charged Ti3C2Tx and PANI also intercalated between layers of Ti3C2Tx during the polymerization as per the Results and Discussion section on pg. 39183. This 3D arrangement results in a highly conductive Ti3C2Tx nanosheets can serve as 2D electron-transfer platforms, guaranteeing the excellent electrical conductivity in PANI/ Ti3C2Tx network (pg. 39190: Results and Discussion). As required by the amendment to Claim 11, Wang et al. further discloses a three-dimensionally conducting network.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the force sensing epoxy film of Li et al. by using a conductive filler comprised of PANI and Ti3C2Tx as taught by Seroka et al. and Wang et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a sensor that is operable over a wide range of applied pressure/force and the sensor has both rapid response and recovery times (Seroka et al. in the abstract) with very efficient charge transfer (Wang et al. pg. 39189: Results and Discussion and Fig. 7).
Li et al. discloses a range of 15 vol.% to 25 vol.% of conductive filler as per Example 1 (¶102-¶104) meaning polymer matrix (e.g.: the epoxy resin) ranges from 85 vol.% to 75 vol.%., respectively. Wang et al. indicated that the optimized PANI-MXene composite is 10.1 wt.% PANI and 89.9 wt.% MXene. The weight% of conductive filler taught by the combination of Li et al, Seroka et al, and Wang et al. is derived in the block below. Said combination of reference discloses the conductive filler ranges from 32.9 wt.% to 48.1 wt.%. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, i.e.: the amount of conductive filler is at least 20 wt.% based on the total weight of the sensing material. See MPEP 2144.05(I) – Overlapping, Approaching, and Similar Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Calculation Block: Weight % of Conductive Filler in Claim 11.
Densities of Components of Force-Sensing Material
Density of Epoxy resin: 1.25 g/mL
Density of MXene (Ti3C2): 4.21 g/mL
Density of PANI: 1.36 g/mL
Optimized conductive filler weight conversion to volume
Assume 100 g of conductive filler
10.1 g PANI x (1 mL/1.36 g) = 7.4 mL PANI [Wingdings font/0xE0] 7.4 mL/28.8 mL = 25.7 vol. % PANI
89.9 g MXene x (1 mL/4.21 g) = 21.4 mL MXene [Wingdings font/0xE0] 21.4 mL/28.8 mL = 74.3 vol.% MXene
Total volume in 100 g conductive filler = 7.4 mL + 21.4 mL = 28.8 mL
Volume Compositions using Ratios in Li et al. Ex. 1
Assume 100 mL of force sensing composite
First Endpoint: 15 mL of conductive filler and 85 mL of epoxy resin
Second Endpoint: 25 mL of conductive filler and 75 mL of epoxy resin
First End Point Volume to Weight Conversions
85 mL of epoxy [Wingdings font/0xE0] 85 mL epoxy x (1.25 g/mL) = 106.3 g epoxy
25.7 vol.% PANI x 15 mL = 3.85 mL PANI [Wingdings font/0xE0] 3.84 mL x (1.36 g/mL) = 5.22 g PANI
74.3 vol.% MXene x 15 mL = 11.15 mL MXene [Wingdings font/0xE0] 11.15 mL x (4.21 g/mL) = 46.9 g MXene
Total Mass in 100 mL conductive filler = 106.3 g + 5.22 g + 46.9 g = 158.4 g
Weight % Conductive Filler = (5.22 g + 46.9 g)/158.4 g = 32.9 wt. % conductive filler
Second End Point Volume to Weight Conversions
75 mL of epoxy [Wingdings font/0xE0] 75 mL epoxy x (1.25 g/mL) = 93.8 g epoxy
25.7 vol.% PANI x 25 mL = 6.43 mL PANI [Wingdings font/0xE0] 6.43 mL x (1.36 g/mL) = 8.74 g PANI
74.3 vol.% MXene x 25 mL = 18.58 mL MXene [Wingdings font/0xE0] 18.58 mL x (4.21 g/mL) = 78.2 g MXene
Total Mass in 100 mL conductive filler = 93.8 g + 8.74 g + 78.2 g = 180.8 g
Weight % Conductive Filler = (8.74 g + 78.22)/180.76 g = 48.1 wt. % conductive filler
The combination of Li et al., Seroka et al., and Wang et al. teaches the conductive filler ranges from 32.9 wt.% to 48.1 wt.% of the force sensing material
Regarding the further amendments to Claim 11, the combination of references discloses a material that has electrical conductivity in three-dimensional space. The use of the MXene/polyaniline material in sodium ion batteries as indicated in Wang et al. would require that the material described by the combination of references can undergo reversible changes in microstructure as the sodium ions are intercalated and de-intercalated leading to a change in volume and cyclic mechanical stress. Moreover, the intercalation and de-intercalation will change the electrical resistance of the material described by the combination of references. Alternatively, the applicant’s own disclosure supports that the 3D structure formed from the interaction between the negatively charged Ti3C2Tx and positively charged PANI dispersed in an epoxy matrix would inherently be configured to undergo reversible microstructural rearrangement under cyclic mechanical strain, thereby producing a corresponding change in electrical resistance supported by at least ¶8 and ¶17 (cited as US Pub. No. 2022/0315774 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Li et al., Seroka et al, and Wang et al. discloses the sensing material of Claim 11, wherein the plurality of MXene particles include Ti3C2 as evidenced by the use of Ti3C2Tx nanosheets of Wang et al. which were prepared by the acidic fluoride treatment of Ti3AlC2 (Wang et al. – pg. 39182: 2.1 Synthesis of Ti3C2Tx Nanosheets).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Li et al., Seroka et al., and Wang et al. discloses the sensing material of Claim 11, wherein the force-sensing material is free of any metal fillers as evidenced by the conductive filler comprising etched Ti3C2Tx and PANI from Wang et al. (pg. 39182: 2.2. Preparation of the 3-D PANI/Ti3C2Tx Network) and polymer matrix being an epoxy resin as per Ex. 1 in Li et al. (¶103).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Li et al., Seroka et al., and Wang et al. discloses a force-sensing material as per Claim 11 (See: Li et al. ¶93-100, Abstract and FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B, and FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Li et al., Seroka et al., and Wang et al. discloses a nanocomposite force sensing material (Title) that is incorporated into as a variable resistor in a Wheatstone bridge as depicted in FIG.2 above from Li et al.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 11 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The combination of Li et al., Seroka et al., and Wang et al. clearly disclose the formation of a 3D network of comprised of negatively charged MXene and positively charged PANI which would have very high electrical conductivity. The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments that the references cannot be combined to render the limitations of amended Claims 1 and 11 obvious. Regarding the amended claims, the combination of references discloses a material that has electrical conductivity in three-dimensional space. The use of the MXene/polyaniline material in sodium ion batteries as indicated in Wang et al. would require that the material described by the combination of references can undergo reversible changes in microstructure as the sodium ions are intercalated and de-intercalated leading to a change in volume and cyclic mechanical stress. Moreover, the intercalation and de-intercalation will change the electrical resistance of the material described by the combination of references. Alternatively, the applicant’s own disclosure supports that the 3D structure formed from the interaction between the negatively charged Ti3C2Tx and positively charged PANI dispersed in an epoxy matrix would inherently be configured to undergo reversible microstructural rearrangement under cyclic mechanical strain, thereby producing a corresponding change in electrical resistance supported by at least ¶8 and ¶17 (cited as US Pub. No. 2022/0315774 A1).
8. It appears that that applicant is, at least in part, arguing that the specific steps used to formulate the force sensing material (i.e.: disperse the PANI/MXene into the polymer matrix) or the specific polymer matrix are important for achieving the purports novel/unique force sensing properties, then applicant should import these specific limitations into the claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xu et al. (CN108530889A) is directed toward a MXene/conductive polymer composite aerogel (title).
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
11. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794