DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the chamber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should read “a chamber.”
Claims 15,16,17,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claims 15,16 the limitation: “moving the second electrode” is not clear because the claim language does not recite how the second electrode will be moved. Additionally, a mechanism to induce the second electrode to move is not disclosed. The Applicant is advised to correct the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 16, therefore will inherit the 112 deficiencies.
Claim 20 is not clear because it discloses “repeating the steps of claim 12 for at least one or more additional input electrodes and one or more output electrodes,” and claim 12 merely discloses that the device includes a chip or a synaptic connection. The claim does not recite if the chip is connected to the conductive network or the synaptic connection is formed via the conductive network.
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 (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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,3,5-8,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being unpatentable over Frey et al., (Frey) US 2014/0190730.
Regarding claim 1, Frey shows in FIG. 8-13, and discloses an electronic component comprising: a substrate [0083], the substrate having a plurality of input electrodes (electrodes shown in FIG. 13)[0100] and a plurality of output electrodes (two electrodes shown in FIG. 13)[0100] disposed on and/or in the substrate [0083] with a separation from each other (the electrodes are separated) see FIG. 13; and an electrically conductive network (electrospun fibers shown in FIG. 13)[0100] of one or more electrically conductive polymers [id.], wherein the electrically conductive network is configured to electrically crosslink the plurality of input electrodes (electrodes shown in FIG. 13) to the plurality of output electrodes, wherein the electrically conductive network [0100] in each case comprises at least one fiber structure of the one or more electrically conductive polymers extending from at least one input electrode to at least one output electrode (Shown in FIG. 13).
Regarding claim 3, Frey shows in FIG. 13, an electronic component, wherein the fiber structure has a substantially rectilinear structure (see FIG. 8-13)(the drawings shows straight and right lines).
Regarding claim 5, Frey shows in FIG. 13, an electronic component, wherein at least one electrically conductive fiber structure (Shown in FIG. 13) of the electrically conductive network connecting an input electrode to an output electrode has at least one branch, the end of which is not electrically connected to any of the output electrodes (multiple fibers shown and at least 1 will not be connected to the electrodes, as depicted in FIG. 13).
Regarding claim 6, Frey shows in FIG. 13, an electronic component, wherein the branch (see FIG.8-13) is directed toward another electrically conductive fiber structure of the electrically conductive network [0100].
Regarding claim 7, Frey shows in FIG. 13, an electronic component, the electronic component further comprising: at least one input electrode of the plurality of input electrodes (see FIG.8-13); and at least a first output electrode and a second output electrode of the plurality of output electrodes, wherein the input electrode has an electrical connection to the first output electrode and the second output electrode (plurality of electrodes forming electrical contacts)[0086].
Regarding claim 8, Frey shows in FIG. 13, an electronic component, the electronic component further comprising: at least a first input electrode and a second input electrode (see FIG. 8-13) of the plurality of input electrodes; and at least one output electrode of the plurality of output electrodes, wherein the first input electrode and the second input electrode have an electrical connection to the output electrode(plurality of electrodes forming electrical contacts)[0086].
Regarding claim 10, Frey shows in FIG. 13, an electronic component, wherein one or more electrically conductive fiber structures of the electrically conductive polymer are disposed with a separation above the substrate (nanofiber disposed above the substrate and in contact with the metal/electrode place above the substrate) [0087].
Claim(s) 14,15,18,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being unpatentable over of Gerasimov et al., (Gerasimov) (An Evolvable Organic Electrochemical Transistor for Neuromorphic Applications, February 4, 2019).
Regarding claim 14, Gerasimov shows in FIG. 1, (section 2.1, 2.2, 2.5,3) and discloses a method of manufacturing an electronic component, the method comprising: providing an electrolytic material (depicted in FIG. 1)(Gerasimov, 2:1-3) (the electrolyte solution is confined in a well) (Id.) at least in a space region between a first electrode and a second electrode (the set of patterned gold electrodes)(Id., 2:27-30), wherein the first electrode is arranged on and/or in a substrate and the second electrode is arranged freely movable in the electrolytic material (in FIG. 1, the electrode is shown floating in the electrolyte, therefore it will be freely movable), wherein the second electrode (floating electrode “the gate”) is arranged with a separation from the first electrode and the substrate (floating above them), and wherein the electrolytic material (depicted in FIG. 1)(Gerasimov, 2:1-3) (the electrolyte solution is confined in a well) comprises at least one polymerizable material; and forming at least one electrical connection between the first electrode and the second electrode by polymerizing the at least one polymerizable material into an electrically conductive polymer (Gerasimov, 2:1-3, abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Gerasimov shows in FIG. 1, (section 2.1, 2.2, 2.5,3) a method further comprising: moving the second electrode (gate is floating in the electrolyte and will be able to move) (depicted in FIG. 1) (Gerasimov, 2:1-3) in the electrolytic material so as to increase the separation from the first electrode, thereby increasing the spatial extent of the electrically conductive polymer (Id.).
Regarding claim 18, Gerasimov shows in FIG. 1, (section 2.1, 2.2, 2.5,3) a method wherein forming the at least one electrical connection (Section 2.5, 5:10-23)( Voltage is applied between the electrodes) is performed by applying an electrical signal between at least the first electrode and the second electrode (Id.).
Regarding claim 19, Gerasimov shows in FIG. 1, (section 2.1, 2.2, 2.5,3) a method wherein forming the at least one electrical connection between the first electrode and the second electrode (the source and drain electrode)(section 2.1, 2,3:1-4) comprises forming a single fiber structure by polymerizing (section 2.5, 5:15-22) the at least one polymerizable material, the fiber structure having physical contact with the first electrode (the fiber grows and makes contacts with the electrode)(Id.); or wherein forming the at least one electrical connection between the first electrode and the third electrode (S,D electrodes) comprises forming a single fiber structure by polymerizing the at least one polymerizable material (Id.), the fiber structure having physical contact with the first and third electrodes (Id.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey.
Regarding claim 2, Frey shows in FIG. 13, an electronic component, wherein the fiber structure has an average diameter in a range of about 100 micron.
As for diameter in a range of 1-50 micrometer. Applicant did not show criticality of the particular range. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 4, 9,11,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey in view of Gerasimov et al., (Gerasimov) (An Evolvable Organic Electrochemical Transistor for Neuromorphic Applications, February 4, 2019).
Regarding claim 4, Frey shows in FIG. 13, an electronic component.
Frey differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose an electronic component further comprising: an electrolytic material disposed at least partially in the chamber between the plurality of input electrodes and the plurality of output electrodes, wherein at least a portion of the electrically conductive network is disposed in the electrolytic material.
Gerasimov shows in FIG. 1, (section 2.1, 2.2, 2.5,3) and discloses an electronic component further comprising: an electrolytic material (depicted in FIG. 1)(Gerasimov, 2:1-3) disposed at least partially in the chamber (the electrolyte solution is confined in a well) (Id.)between the plurality of input electrodes (the set of patterned gold electrodes)(Id., 2:27-30) and the plurality of output electrodes, wherein at least a portion of the electrically conductive network (PETE-S formed between the electrodes)(Id., 2:8-15) is disposed in the electrolytic material.
Gerasimov is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Frey. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Gerasimov in the device of Frey because it will provide a device with an enhanced conductance and facilitate modulation of the channel (Gerasimov, 2:18-21).
Regarding claim 9, Frey shows in FIG. 13, an electronic component.
Frey differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose an electronic component further comprising: a feedback channel adapted to electrically conductively connect at least one output electrode to an input electrode.
Gerasimov shows in FIG. 1, (section 2.1, 2.2, 2.5,3) and discloses electronic component further comprising: a feedback channel adapted to electrically conductively connect at least one output electrode to an input electrode (depicted in FIG. 1, Vd is the feedback channel connecting the Source and drain electrode shown in the figure)(Gerasimov, 2:1-3).
Gerasimov is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Frey. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Gerasimov in the device of Frey because it will provide a device with an enhanced conductance and facilitate modulation of the channel (Gerasimov, 2:18-21).
Regarding claim 11, Frey shows in FIG. 13, an electronic component.
Frey differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose an electronic component wherein one or more electrically conductive fiber structures is/are fully free of physical contact with the substrate in at least a portion thereof.
Gerasimov shows in FIG. 1, (section 2.1, 2.2, 2.5,3) and discloses an electronic component wherein one or more electrically conductive fiber structures is/are fully free of physical contact with the substrate in at least a portion thereof (depicted in FIG. 1)(Gerasimov, 2:1-3, section 2.1, 2:1-5, the fiber is initially free and when it is electropolymerize, it grows and establish an electrical connection with the electrodes, it does not contact the substrate).
Gerasimov is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Frey. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Gerasimov in the device of Frey because it will provide a device with an enhanced conductance and facilitate modulation of the channel (Gerasimov, 2:18-21).
Regarding claim 12, Frey shows in FIG. 13, an electronic component.
Frey differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose an electronic component wherein the electronic component comprises a neuromorphic chip and/or a synaptic connection in a brain-computer interface.
Gerasimov shows in FIG. 1, (section 2.1, 2.2, 2.5,3) and discloses a device wherein the electronic component comprises a neuromorphic chip and/or a synaptic connection in a brain-computer interface (Gerasimov, 4:8-15).
Gerasimov is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Frey. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Gerasimov in the device of Frey because it will provide a device with an enhanced conductance and facilitate modulation of the channel (Gerasimov, 2:18-21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is (571)272-5178. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893