DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "wherein the strain comprises" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6 and is, therefore, also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reason set above.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "wherein the strain comprises" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 depends claim 17 and is, therefore, also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reason set above.
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, 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.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clerc et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230148760) in view of Hu et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230234258).
Regarding independent claim 1, Clerc et al. (e. g. see [0013], [0116], FIGS. 7, 8 and 9) discloses a preparation method of a flexible piezoresistive sensor ([0013] a pneumatic piezoelectric or strain sensor), comprising the following steps: cutting (cutting is obviously required to have rigid panels 2 from wood block) natural wood ([0116] The use of natural material such as wood is also possible) to obtain wood blocks (rigid panels 2), and connecting the initial product (support device SP) to an electrode ([0133] As visible in FIG. 12, the acquisition apparatus may include a cable 96, particularly for powering the acquisition apparatus. The end of the cable is equipped with a connector 98 (e.g., micro-USB), [0040] the acquisition apparatus may comprise a connection cable to be powered from an external power supply), and conducting packaging to obtain the flexible piezoresistive sensor ([0096] Having several rigid panels 2 allows for a foldable support device SP (for storage or packaging).)
Clerc et al. does not disclose the details of wood treatment preparation method such as removing lignin and hemicellulose from the wood blocks to obtain an initial product.
However, Hu et al. (e. g. [0121], FIGS. 15A and 15B) teaches removing lignin and hemicellulose from the wood blocks ([0121] Basswood was cut into blocks 1500, each having a size of 5 cm length×5 cm width×5 mm thickness. Each wood block 1500 was subjected to a chemical treatment 1502, in particular, immersion in a solution of NaOH (2.5 mol L.sup.−1) and Na.sub.2SQ.sub.3 (0.4 mol L.sup.−1) for 12 hours, so as to partially remove lignin and hemicellulose therefrom) to obtain an initial product (the resulting structure 1512).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the packaging of detecting apparatus of Clerc et al. with “removing lignin and hemicellulose from the wood blocks to obtain an initial product” as taught by Hu et al. for the purpose of adjusting the output voltage (lines 14-30 of col. 4).
Since Clerc et al. and Hu et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (using wood blocks as lightweight structural materials), the purpose disclosed by Hu et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Clerc et al.
Regarding claim 8, Clerc et al. in view of Hu et al. does not disclose the natural wood is Ochroma lagopus Swartz, and the wood blocks obtained after cutting has a size of (0.5-2) cm x (0.5-2) cm x (0.5-2) cm.
However, usage of the natural wood Ochroma lagopus Swartz would have been an obvious matter of design choice for sensor material because Ochroma lagopus (Balsa) is well known as being primarily used for its exceptionally lightweight, strong wood as well as a fast-growing, pioneer species ideal for rehabilitating degraded lands and provides rapid, sustainable timber production in tropical areas.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to obtain the wood blocks after cutting with a size of (0.5-2) cm x (0.5-2) cm x (0.5-2) cm, since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions to meet the requirement of packaging and material saving for successfully manufacturing the sensor.
Regarding claim 12, Clerc et al. (e. g. see [0013], [0116], FIGS. 7, 8 and 9) in view of Hu et al. (e. g. [0121], FIGS. 15A and 15B) discloses a flexible piezoresistive sensor ([0013] a pneumatic piezoelectric or strain sensor), wherein the flexible piezoresistive sensor ([0013] a pneumatic piezoelectric or strain sensor) is prepared by using the preparation method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Clerc et al. in view of Hu et al. does not disclose the natural wood is Ochroma lagopus Swar1i, and the wood blocks obtained after cutting has a size of (0.5-2) cm x (0.5-2) cm x (0.5-2) cm.
However, usage of the natural wood Ochroma lagopus Swartz would have been an obvious matter of design choice for sensor material because Ochroma lagopus (Balsa) is well known as being primarily used for its exceptionally lightweight, strong wood crucial in wind turbine blades, model aircraft, and composite materials. Ochroma lagopus is also known as a fast-growing, pioneer species ideal for rehabilitating degraded lands and provides rapid, sustainable timber production in tropical areas.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to obtain the wood blocks after cutting with a size of (0.5-2) cm x (0.5-2) cm x (0.5-2) cm, since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions to meet the requirement of packaging and material saving for successfully manufacturing the sensor.
Claims 2, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clerc et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230148760) in view of Hu et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230234258) and further in view of Jaschinski (U. S. Patent No. 6409881).
Regarding claim 2, Clerc et al. in view of Hu et al. does not disclose placing the wood blocks in a mixed solution containing sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfite for cooking, and conducting oxidative bleaching and drying to obtain the initial product.
However, Jaschinski (e. g. see lines 62-66 of col. 7, lines 20-25 of col. 12, lines 20-30 of col. 17) teaches placing the wood blocks in a mixed solution containing sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfite for cooking (The chemical raw pulps suitable according to the invention include, inter alia, sulfite pulps, kraft pulps (sulfate process), soda pulps (cooking with sodium hydroxide), pulps from high-pressure cooking with organic solvents.), and conducting oxidative bleaching and drying (a significant rise in dry and wet strength can be achieved by bleaching using oxidative bleaching agents such as peracetic acid; an extent develop a dry strength as a result of inter-fiber hydrogen bonds) to obtain the initial product (paper).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the step of removing lignin and hemicellulose from the wood blocks of Hu et al. to include “placing the wood blocks in a mixed solution containing sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfite for cooking, and conducting oxidative bleaching and drying to obtain the initial product” as taught by Jaschinski for the purpose of producing crosslinked cellulose-containing fibrous material.
Since Clerc et al., Hu et al. and Jaschinski are from the same field of endeavor (usage of wood blocks), the purpose disclosed by Jaschinski would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Clerc et al. and Hu et al.
Regarding claim 9, Clerc et al. in view of Hu et al. and Jaschinski (U. S. Patent No. 6409881) does not disclose the natural wood is Ochroma lagopus Swartz, and the wood blocks obtained after cutting has a size of (0.5-2) cm x (0.5-2) cm x (0.5-2) cm.
However, usage of the natural wood Ochroma lagopus Swartz would have been an obvious matter of design choice for sensor material because Ochroma lagopus (Balsa) is well known as being primarily used for its exceptionally lightweight, strong wood crucial in wind turbine blades, model aircraft, and composite materials. Ochroma lagopus is also known as a fast-growing, pioneer species ideal for rehabilitating degraded lands and provides rapid, sustainable timber production in tropical areas.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to obtain the wood blocks after cutting with a size of (0.5-2) cm x (0.5-2) cm x (0.5-2) cm, since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions to meet the requirement of packaging and material saving for successfully manufacturing the sensor.
Regarding claim 13, Clerc et al. in view of Hu et al. does not disclose the step of removing lignin and hemicellulose comprises: placing the wood blocks in a mixed solution containing sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfite for cooking, and conducting oxidative bleaching and drying to obtain the initial product.
However, Jaschinski (e. g. see lines 62-66 of col. 7, lines 20-25 of col. 12, lines 20-30 of col. 17) teaches placing the wood blocks in a mixed solution containing sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfite for cooking (The chemical raw pulps suitable according to the invention include, inter alia, sulfite pulps, kraft pulps (sulfate process), soda pulps (cooking with sodium hydroxide), pulps from high-pressure cooking with organic solvents.), and conducting oxidative bleaching and drying (a significant rise in dry and wet strength can be achieved by bleaching using oxidative bleaching agents such as peracetic acid; an extent develop a dry strength as a result of inter-fiber hydrogen bonds) to obtain the initial product (paper).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the step of removing lignin and hemicellulose from the wood blocks of Hu et al. to include “placing the wood blocks in a mixed solution containing sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfite for cooking, and conducting oxidative bleaching and drying to obtain the initial product” as taught by Jaschinski for the purpose of producing crosslinked cellulose-containing fibrous material.
Since Clerc et al., Hu et al. and Jaschinski are from the same field of endeavor (usage of wood blocks), the purpose disclosed by Jaschinski would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Clerc et al. and Hu et al.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clerc et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230148760) in view of Hu et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230234258) and further in view of Boitouzet et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190077040).
Regarding claim 4, Clerc et al. in view of Hu et al. does not disclose placing the wood blocks in an aqueous solution containing sodium chlorite and acetic acid for primary soaking, placing the wood blocks in a sodium hydroxide solution for secondary soaking, and drying the wood blocks to obtain the initial product.
However, Boitouzet et al. (e. g. see [0058], [0110]-[0112]) teaches placing the wood blocks in an aqueous solution containing sodium chlorite and acetic acid for primary soaking ([0058] According to the invention, the soaking step (1) may be preceded by a prior treatment step, generally to partially extract extractives, comprising at least one sub-step of pre-soaking a structure of lignocellulosic material with at least one organic fluid, generally to dissolve part of the extractives present in the material; followed by at least one sub-step of pre-washing of the structure resulting from the pre-soaking sub-step, with at least one organic fluid, so as to discharge the dissolved compounds resulting from the sub-step of pre-soaking. [0110] Such a reducing agent may be added to an acid or a base described above. Preferably, the organic fluid of soaking step (1) may be chosen from: [0111] an oxidizing acidic aqueous solution comprising a mixture of an acetic acid solution or and an oxidizing agent such as hydrogen peroxide, or an acidic aqueous solution comprising hydrogen bromide, sulfuric acid or phosphoric acid; [0112] an oxidizing aqueous solution comprising a mixture of a basic solution such as sodium hydroxide, an aqueous liquid comprising monoethanolamine, or potassium hydroxide with an oxidizing agent such as sodium chlorite), placing the wood blocks in a sodium hydroxide solution for secondary soaking ([0112] an oxidizing aqueous solution comprising a mixture of a basic solution such as sodium hydroxide, an aqueous liquid comprising monoethanolamine, or potassium hydroxide with an oxidizing agent such as sodium chlorite), and drying the wood blocks ([0049] It is particularly advantageous according to the invention to be able to treat green wood or even damp wood since this makes it possible make non-negligible saving of a prior drying step for the wood) to obtain the initial product (a lignocellulosic material).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the step of removing lignin and hemicellulose from the wood blocks of Hu et al. to include “placing the wood blocks in an aqueous solution containing sodium chlorite and acetic acid for primary soaking, placing the wood blocks in a sodium hydroxide solution for secondary soaking, and drying the wood blocks to obtain the initial product” as taught by Boitouzet et al. for the purpose of obtaining a lignocellulosic material.
Since Clerc et al., Hu et al. and Boitouzet et al. are from the same field of endeavor (usage of wood blocks), the purpose disclosed by Boitouzet et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Clerc et al. and Hu et al.
Regarding claim 15, Clerc et al. in view of Hu et al. does not disclose the step of removing lignin and hemicellulose comprises: placing the wood blocks in an aqueous solution containing sodium chlorite and acetic acid for primary soaking, placing the wood blocks in a sodium hydroxide solution for secondary soaking, and drying the wood blocks to obtain the initial product.
However, Boitouzet et al. (e. g. see [0058], [0110]-[0112]) teaches placing the wood blocks in an aqueous solution containing sodium chlorite and acetic acid for primary soaking ([0058] According to the invention, the soaking step (1) may be preceded by a prior treatment step, generally to partially extract extractives, comprising at least one sub-step of pre-soaking a structure of lignocellulosic material with at least one organic fluid, generally to dissolve part of the extractives present in the material; followed by at least one sub-step of pre-washing of the structure resulting from the pre-soaking sub-step, with at least one organic fluid, so as to discharge the dissolved compounds resulting from the sub-step of pre-soaking. [0110] Such a reducing agent may be added to an acid or a base described above. Preferably, the organic fluid of soaking step (1) may be chosen from: [0111] an oxidizing acidic aqueous solution comprising a mixture of an acetic acid solution or and an oxidizing agent such as hydrogen peroxide, or an acidic aqueous solution comprising hydrogen bromide, sulfuric acid or phosphoric acid; [0112] an oxidizing aqueous solution comprising a mixture of a basic solution such as sodium hydroxide, an aqueous liquid comprising monoethanolamine, or potassium hydroxide with an oxidizing agent such as sodium chlorite), placing the wood blocks in a sodium hydroxide solution for secondary soaking ([0112] an oxidizing aqueous solution comprising a mixture of a basic solution such as sodium hydroxide, an aqueous liquid comprising monoethanolamine, or potassium hydroxide with an oxidizing agent such as sodium chlorite), and drying the wood blocks ([0049] It is particularly advantageous according to the invention to be able to treat green wood or even damp wood since this makes it possible make non-negligible saving of a prior drying step for the wood) to obtain the initial product (a lignocellulosic material).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the step of removing lignin and hemicellulose from the wood blocks of Hu et al. to include “placing the wood blocks in an aqueous solution containing sodium chlorite and acetic acid for primary soaking, placing the wood blocks in a sodium hydroxide solution for secondary soaking, and drying the wood blocks to obtain the initial product” as taught by Boitouzet et al. for the purpose of obtaining a lignocellulosic material.
Since Clerc et al., Hu et al. and Boitouzet et al. are from the same field of endeavor (usage of wood blocks), the purpose disclosed by Boitouzet et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Clerc et al. and Hu et al.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clerc et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230148760) in view of Hu et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230234258) and further in view of Bos et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200068894).
Regarding claim 6, Clerc et al. in view of Hu et al. does not disclose placing the wood blocks in a sterilized nutrient agar medium, inoculating strains for incubation and culture, removing bacteria, and sterilizing and drying the wood blocks to obtain the initial product, wherein the strain comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of white rot fungi, Panus conchatus, Coriolus versicolor, Pleurotus ostreatus, Fomes lignosus, and Ganoderma applanatum.
However, Bos et al. (e. g. see [0091]-[0121]) teaches placing the wood blocks in a sterilized nutrient agar medium ([0095] The blocks were sterilized by promptly passing the blocks over an alcohol burner flame…. sterile Difco™ culture medium comprising 3% malt extract agar), inoculating strains ([0092] The culture medium was inoculated as close to the dish edge as possible with two inocula) for incubation ([0104] The blocks were incubated for 12 weeks) and culture ([0095] culture medium, culture dishes), removing bacteria ([0069] prevent or reduce bacterial contamination of a water-based wood coating), and sterilizing ([0091] The treated blocks were sterilized by passing briefly through an alcohol based burner flame) and drying (allow to dry for 10 days) the wood blocks to obtain the initial product (wood blocks), wherein the strain comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of white rot fungi ([0104] After conditioning and weighing, the test blocks were sterilized … were placed in glass jars on feeder strips pre-inoculated with brown rot fungus … or white rot fungus), Panus conchatus, Coriolus versicolor, Pleurotus ostreatus, Fomes lignosus, and Ganoderma applanatum (it is well known in the art that all these listed fungi are classified as white rot fungi.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the step of removing lignin of Hu et al. to include “placing the wood blocks in a sterilized nutrient agar medium, inoculating strains for incubation and culture, removing bacteria, and sterilizing and drying the wood blocks to obtain the initial product, wherein the strain comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of white rot fungi, Panus conchatus, Coriolus versicolor, Pleurotus ostreatus, Fomes lignosus, and Ganoderma applanatum” as taught by Bos et al. for the purpose of effectively producing an antimicrobial wood preservative having an antimicrobial composition.
Since Clerc et al., Hu et al. and Bos et al. are from the same field of endeavor (usage of wood blocks), the purpose disclosed by Bos et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Clerc et al. and Hu et al.
Regarding claim 17, Clerc et al. in view of Hu et al. does not disclose placing the wood blocks in a sterilized nutrient agar medium, inoculating strains for incubation and culture, removing bacteria, and sterilizing and drying the wood blocks to obtain the initial product, wherein the strain comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of white rot fungi, Panus conchatus, Coriolus versicolor, Pleurotus ostreatus, Fomes lignosus, and Ganoderma applanatum.
However, Bos et al. (e. g. see [0091]-[0121]) teaches placing the wood blocks in a sterilized nutrient agar medium ([0095] The blocks were sterilized by promptly passing the blocks over an alcohol burner flame…. sterile Difco™ culture medium comprising 3% malt extract agar), inoculating strains ([0092] The culture medium was inoculated as close to the dish edge as possible with two inocula) for incubation ([0104] The blocks were incubated for 12 weeks) and culture ([0095] culture medium, culture dishes), removing bacteria ([0069] prevent or reduce bacterial contamination of a water-based wood coating), and sterilizing ([0091] The treated blocks were sterilized by passing briefly through an alcohol based burner flame) and drying (allow to dry for 10 days) the wood blocks to obtain the initial product (wood blocks), wherein the strain comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of white rot fungi ([0104] After conditioning and weighing, the test blocks were sterilized … were placed in glass jars on feeder strips pre-inoculated with brown rot fungus … or white rot fungus), Panus conchatus, Coriolus versicolor, Pleurotus ostreatus, Fomes lignosus, and Ganoderma applanatum (it is well known in the art that all these listed fungi are classified as white rot fungi.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the step of removing lignin of Hu et al. to include “placing the wood blocks in a sterilized nutrient agar medium, inoculating strains for incubation and culture, removing bacteria, and sterilizing and drying the wood blocks to obtain the initial product, wherein the strain comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of white rot fungi, Panus conchatus, Coriolus versicolor, Pleurotus ostreatus, Fomes lignosus, and Ganoderma applanatum” as taught by Bos et al. for the purpose of effectively producing an antimicrobial wood preservative having an antimicrobial composition.
Since Clerc et al., Hu et al. and Bos et al. are from the same field of endeavor (usage of wood blocks), the purpose disclosed by Bos et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Clerc et al. and Hu et al.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clerc et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230148760) in view of Hu et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230234258) and further in view of He et al. (CN 109137105).
Regarding claim 11, Clerc et al. in view of Hu et al. does not disclose the step of connecting the initial product to an electrode, and conducting packaging comprises connecting copper foil as the electrode to the initial product by using silver paste, drawing out a copper wire from the copper foil, and conducting integrally packaging with a polydimethylsiloxane film.
However, He et al. (e. g. see claim 7) teaches connecting the initial product to an electrode, and conducting packaging comprises connecting copper foil as the electrode to the initial product by using silver paste, drawing out a copper wire from the copper foil, and conducting integrally packaging with a polydimethylsiloxane film (Claim 7: (5) the two copper lead wires with a conductive silver paste and copper foil adhesive tape fixing two ends of flexible conductive graphene nano fibre yarn prepared in step (4) of forming two electrodes of the sensor. then the liquid polydimethylsiloxane coating on surface of flexible conductive graphene nano fibre yarn).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the wiring of the sensor of Clerc et al. to include “the step of connecting the initial product to an electrode, and conducting packaging comprises connecting copper foil as the electrode to the initial product by using silver paste, drawing out a copper wire from the copper foil, and conducting integrally packaging with a polydimethylsiloxane film” as taught by He et al. for the purpose of providing the flexible wearable sensors with durable wiring for an excellent electrical performance.
Since Clerc et al., Hu et al. and He et al. are from the same field of endeavor (wiring for stretchable sensor), the purpose disclosed by He et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Clerc et al. and Hu et al.
Regarding claim 20, Clerc et al. in view of Hu et al. does not disclose the step of connecting the initial product to an electrode, and conducting packaging comprises connecting copper foil as the electrode to the initial product by using silver paste, drawing out a copper wire from the copper foil, and conducting integrally packaging with a polydimethylsiloxane film.
However, He et al. (e. g. see claim 7) teaches connecting the initial product to an electrode, and conducting packaging comprises connecting copper foil as the electrode to the initial product by using silver paste, drawing out a copper wire from the copper foil, and conducting integrally packaging with a polydimethylsiloxane film (Claim 7: (5) the two copper lead wires with a conductive silver paste and copper foil adhesive tape fixing two ends of flexible conductive graphene nano fibre yarn prepared in step (4) of forming two electrodes of the sensor. then the liquid polydimethylsiloxane coating on surface of flexible conductive graphene nano fibre yarn).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the wiring of the sensor of Clerc et al. to include “the step of connecting the initial product to an electrode, and conducting packaging comprises connecting copper foil as the electrode to the initial product by using silver paste, drawing out a copper wire from the copper foil, and conducting integrally packaging with a polydimethylsiloxane film” as taught by He et al. for the purpose of providing the flexible wearable sensors with durable wiring for an excellent electrical performance.
Since Clerc et al., Hu et al. and He et al. are from the same field of endeavor (wiring for stretchable sensor), the purpose disclosed by He et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Clerc et al. and Hu et al.
Examiner’s Note:
In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention.
For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected.
Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to be incorporated into independent claims including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20150187961) discloses a piezoresistive sensor using a piezoresistive pattern that increases a piezoresistive deformation rate.
Zeng et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20180073943) discloses flexible, stretchable, highly sensitive and low-cost piezoresistive pressure sensors and a method of manufacturing them.
Shen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11897162) discloses a piezoresistive sensor material and preparation method. The resulting wood powder to solation, chemical crosslinking-gelation, and lyophilization is for obtaining a wood fiber aerogel.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, DEDEI HAMMOND can be reached at (571) 270-7938. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
21 January 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837