Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0161287 Yoo et al.
1. Referring to claim 12, Yoo et al. teaches a stretchable electronic device comprising: a plurality of conductive traces, (Figures 1 & 2 #100); one or more electrical contacts, (Figures 1 & 2 #170), in electrical communication with the plurality of conductive traces, (Figures 1 & 2 #100); one or more surface mounted components, (Figures 1 & 2 #200), mounted to the one or more electrical contacts, (Figures 1 & 2 #170); and a stretchable substrate, (Figures 1 & 2 #910 & 920), surrounding, (the term surrounding is read in its broadest reasonable manner and not limited to completely encasing), the plurality of conductive traces, (Figures 1 & 2 #100), and the one or more surface mounted components, (Figures 1 & 2 #200).
2. Referring to claim 13, Yoo et al. teaches a stretchable electronic device of claim 12, wherein the stretchable substrate is flexible, (Figures 1 & 2 #910 & 920 and Paragraph 0069).
3. Referring to claim 14, Yoo et al. teaches a stretchable electronic device of claim 12, wherein the plurality of conductive traces is stretchable, (Figures 1 & 2 #100 and Paragraph 0045 and where the term stretchable is read in its broadest manner and is not limited to an specific amount of stretchability that would limit the claim further than being flexible).
4. Referring to claim 15, Yoo et al. teaches a stretchable electronic device of claim 12, wherein the plurality of conductive traces is flexible, (Figures 1 & 2 #910 & 920 and Paragraph 0069).
5. Referring to claim 16, Yoo et al. teaches a stretchable electronic device of claim 15, wherein the plurality of conductive traces has an undulating, meandering, sawtooth, or serpentine geometry, (Figures 1 & 2 #100 where the claim is not limited to the entire length of the traces have the undulating, meandering, sawtooth, or serpentine geometry, hence the end sections which are bent can read on the claim).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0161287 Yoo et al. in view of over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0356957 Sawada et al.
6. Referring to claim 17, Yoo et al. teaches a stretchable electronic device of claim 12, wherein the stretchable substrate is made out of urethane rubber, (Paragraph 0048), but silent to wherein the stretchable substrate is transparent.
Sawada et al. teaches a similar device where the stretchable material is made out of a transparent urethane rubber, (Paragraph 0043). 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 to combine the teachings of Sawada et al. with Yoo et al. because having the stretchable substrate being transparent will increase light output as a waveguide, (Sawada et al. Paragraph 0064), and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
7. Referring to claim 18, Yoo et al. in view of Sawada et al. teaches a stretchable electronic device of claim 17, wherein the one or more surface mounted components are optoelectronic devices, (Figures 1 & 2 #200 and Paragraph 0040).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
8. Claim 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
9. The prior art teaches the claimed matter in the rejections above, but is silent with respect to the above teachings in combination with the stretchable electronic device of claim 18, wherein the optoelectronic devices include a photo generation device and a photo detector device; and/or a stretchable electronic assembly, comprising: two stretchable electronic devices according to claim12, wherein the two stretchable electronic devices are stacked on one another and wherein conductive traces in the two stretchable electronic devices are connected by one or more conductive vias extending between the two stretchable electronic devices.
10. The prior art, (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0161287 Yoo et al.), teaches a stretchable electronic device comprising: a plurality of conductive traces; one or more electrical contacts in electrical communication with the plurality of conductive traces; one or more surface mounted components mounted to the one or more electrical contacts; and a stretchable substrate surrounding the plurality of conductive traces and the one or more surface mounted components, but is silent to the combination of a method of manufacturing a stretchable electronic device, comprising: depositing a release layer on a temporary rigid substrate; depositing a sacrificial layer on the release layer; fabricating a plurality of conductive traces and electrical contacts on top of the sacrificial layer; mounting one or more surface mount components to the electrical depositing a first stretchable polymer layer on top of the conductive traces and surface mount components to form a stretchable substrate; separating the temporary rigid substrate and release layer from the sacrificial layer and the stretchable substrate at an interface between the release layer and the sacrificial layer; removing the sacrificial layer from the stretchable substrate; and depositing a second stretchable polymer layer on a surface of the stretchable substrate exposed by removing the sacrificial layer.
1. These combinations have been found to not be anticipated or render obvious over the prior art, hence claims 1-11 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR A MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1918. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-6:30 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, Dale Page can be reached on 571-270-7877. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VICTOR A MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 2/26/26