DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the Response to Election filed 6/17/2026. The application contains claims 14-23, all examined and rejected.
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 23 recites the limitation "the other nonlinear unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 14, 16, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Neuromorphic Atomic Switch Networks” Published 2012, hereinafter D1.
With regard to Claim 14,
D1 teach a three-dimensional electric element, comprising:
four or more nonlinear units each having nonlinear current-voltage characteristics (P. 2, Device fabrication and characterization, “massively interconnected (109 junctions/cm2 according to analysis of SEM images), silver nanowire networks functionalized with interfacial Ag|Ag2S|Ag atomic switches”, Atomic switches, complex networks and neuromorphic hardware, “Individual atomic switches exhibit time-dependent nonlinear conductance … ”, “Complex network architectures generated through self-assembly of functional nanoscale elements“, Atomic switches, complex networks and neuromorphic hardware, “Individual atomic switches exhibit time-dependent nonlinear conductance”, Results, “Behaviors include both weak (continuous I–V loop hysteresis) and strong (discrete threshold switching) memristance as well as nonlinear frequency response (higher harmonic generation) and persistent fluctuations in conductivity under constant bias (recurrent connectivity)” P. 3, Fig. 1, ); and
an electric conductor formed of a substance different from a substance of the nonlinear units (P. 2, Device fabrication and characterization, “silver nanowire networks functionalized with interfacial Ag|Ag2S|Ag atomic switches”, “Individual atomic switches exhibit time-dependent nonlinear conductance due to several related mechanisms … (3) an associated non-equilibrium α/β Ag2S phase transition”, P. 3, “Dendritic silver nanowires with minimum feature sizes ,100 nm seen in Figure 1b were produced …”, “Ag|Ag2S|Ag interfaces were formed spontaneously within the network during gas phase sulfurization”, “In poorly conducting regions comprised mainly of Ag2S, anodic silver dissolves into and travels across the electrically insulating sulfide as Ag+”) and configured to connect the nonlinear units, both of the nonlinear units and the electric conductor are arranged in a three-dimensional manner (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Abstract, “a hardware based platform comprised of over a billion interconnected atomic-switch inorganic synapses embedded in a complex network of silver nanowires “, P. 2, Device fabrication and characterization, “massively interconnected (109 junctions/cm2 according to analysis of SEM images), silver nanowire networks functionalized with interfacial Ag|Ag2S|Ag atomic switches”, “These nanowire networks were prepared through self-assembly without pre-patterning of the network topology using the electroless deposition of Ag from Cu inside the SU-8 reaction well of an I/O device platform”, P. 5, “the conductive paths between the two channels overlap spatially, yet are switched independently, indicating that local sub regions of the network can transition to distinct operational modes despite being embedded within a highly interconnected, largely metallic structure”, “other spatially intertwined channels within the same nanowire network”), wherein
the nonlinear current-voltage characteristics indicate a nonlinear relationship between a value of voltage applied to each of the nonlinear units and a value of voltage output from each of the nonlinear units (P. 2, Atomic switches, complex networks and neuromorphic hardware, P. 2, Atomic switches, complex networks and neuromorphic hardware , “Previous reports on the synapse-like properties of single atomic switches have demonstrated features similar to short-term plasticity and long-term potentiation, where applied bias voltage produced a junction conductance dependent on the history of stimulation (pulse frequency, length) [14]. Individual atomic switches exhibit time-dependent nonlinear conductance due to several related mechanisms: (1) bias induced Ag+ migration, (2) electrochemical redox reactions involving Ag+/Ag0 to produce metallic filaments, and (3) an associated non-equilibrium α/β Ag2S phase transition”, P. 3, ¶2, “Initial voltage sweeps of these network devices (Figure 2a and S1) typically demonstrated smooth, pinched hysteresis loops characteristic of weakly memristive systems followed by an abrupt, nearly discontinuous jump to a distinct, high conductance ON state occurs at an activation bias voltage (Va)”, P. 4, “single switch turning ON does not simply lead to an increased potential drop across the next junction in a serial chain, but redistributes voltage across many recurrent connections that can ultimately produce a net decrease in network conductivity”, P. 3, “atomic switch network is recurrent in the sense that there exist pathways such that electrical signals produced at one junction may lead to (delayed) feedback at the same junction”, Results, “These complex atomic switch networks are shown to exhibit various nonlinear behaviors, depending on the magnitude and timing of both present and prior input signals. Behaviors include both weak (continuous I–V loop hysteresis) and strong (discrete threshold switching) memristance as well as nonlinear frequency response (higher harmonic generation) …”, “nonlinear input-dependent conductance response”) as well as a nonlinear relationship between a value of current energized to each of the nonlinear units and a value of current output from each of the nonlinear units (P. 4, Fig. 2, “Subsequent 61.5 V bipolar sweeps result in repeatable pinched hysteresis behavior (inset: ROFF=25kV, RON=800 V), and bistable switching”, P. 5, Fig. 4, “Representative device parameters: ROFF.10 MV, RON,20 kV, VT=3 V during activation”, P. 5, “The application of a single, large voltage pulse (63 V, 1 s) selectively switched connections between electrode pairs ON and OFF (Figure 5a) with a RON/ROFF ratio greater than 30”, P. 2, Atomic switches, complex networks and neuromorphic hardware , “where applied bias voltage produced a junction conductance dependent on the history of stimulation (pulse frequency, length) [14]. Individual atomic switches exhibit time-dependent nonlinear conductance “Atomic switches, complex networks and neuromorphic hardware, “Individual atomic switches exhibit time-dependent nonlinear conductance … ”, P. 3, Network-specific properties, “the entire network was involved in processing the input signals“, “device response to a 10 Hz sinusoidal voltage signal varying in strength from 250 mV to 4 V shows a large increase in higher frequency components after functionalization (Figure 3b). The proportion of higher harmonics generated increases with signal amplitude”, P. 4, Fig. 3, “Plot of 2nd and 3rd harmonic generation in current response as a function of bias voltage”, P. 4, “large bidirectional fluctuations (DI greater than 100% on the scale of hours) in the current response persisted for several days under constant applied voltage”).
With regard to Claim 16,
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 14 therefore it is rejected under similar rationale. D1 further disclose an input electrode and an output electrode, each of the input electrode and the output electrode being connected to the three-dimensional electric element (D1, Fig. 1, P. 3, “conductive pathways between the Pt device I/O electrodes as seen in Figure 1b“, “(b) High resolution image of the functionalized Ag network at the device electrode interface (Pt)“, P. 6, Fig. 5a, Fig. 5b, four electrodes I, ii, iii, iv, “Although the device operates with a four state output … The figure shows correlation coefficients of channel resistances for all 6 pairwise electrode combinations“, P. 6, Measurement Apparatus “Electrical characterization of the devices was conducted using four Pt electrodes positioned around the edges of the Ag network”, P. 5, Col. 2, “when conductive channels exist between all four electrodes, the overall magnitude of correlation in the network is correspondingly large”, P. 5, Col. 2, “conductive channels exist between all four electrodes”).
With regard to Claim 18,
D1 teach the machine learning system according to claim 16, wherein the three-dimensional electric element has three or more sides, and the output electrode is inserted into each of at least three of the three or more sides (D1, Fig. 1, P. 3, “conductive pathways between the Pt device I/O electrodes as seen in Figure 1b“, “(b) High resolution image of the functionalized Ag network at the device electrode interface (Pt)“, P. 6, Fig. 5a, Fig. 5b, four electrodes I, ii, iii, iv, “Although the device operates with a four state output … The figure shows correlation coefficients of channel resistances for all 6 pairwise electrode combinations“, P. 6, Measurement Apparatus “Electrical characterization of the devices was conducted using four Pt electrodes positioned around the edges of the Ag network”, P. 5, Col. 2, “when conductive channels exist between all four electrodes, the overall magnitude of correlation in the network is correspondingly large”, P. 5, Col. 2, “conductive channels exist between all four electrodes”).
With regard to Claim 23,
D1 teach the three-dimensional electric element according to claim 14, wherein the nonlinear units are connected by the electric conductor such that an electrical signal output from one nonlinear unit to be transmitted to the other nonlinear unit (P. 2, Device fabrication and characterization, “massively interconnected (109 junctions/cm2 according to analysis of SEM images), silver nanowire networks functionalized with interfacial Ag|Ag2S|Ag atomic switches”, P. 3, “atomic switch network is recurrent in the sense that there exist pathways such that electrical signals produced at one junction may lead to (delayed) feedback at the same junction”, P. 4, “single switch turning ON does not simply lead to an increased potential drop across the next junction in a serial chain, but redistributes voltage across many recurrent connections …”, P. 2, “these complex structures may be essential to successfully generate the requisite spatiotemporal interactions between multiple signals simultaneously traveling through the network”).
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.
Claim 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Elastic, Conductive, Polymeric Hydrogels and Sponge” Published 2014, hereinafter D1 in view of Wang et al. [US 2008/020,3380 A1 hereinafter Wang].
With regard to Claim 15,
D1 disclose three-dimensional electric element according to claim 14.
D1 does not explicitly teach the electric conductor is a carbon nanotube.
Wang teach electric conductor is a carbon nanotube (¶7, “Another promising application of CNT is related to the substitution of metallic interconnects in the integrated circuits (ICs) distributing signals, power, ground supply lines and other elements for systems on a chip”, ¶65, “The CNT nano-wire channel 2-221 and the metal nanoparticle channel 2-223 provide a current channel between the middle electrode 2-203 and the bottom electrode 2-205”, ¶70, “Because of these insulators and the CNT nano-wires 2-221 functioning as a conductor”, “an entire CNT nano-wire based channel … may be used”).
D1 and Wang are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from a similar field of endeavor of nanoscale electrotonic devices and compact conductive material. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 resulting in resolutions as disclosed by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify D1 as described above and would have recognized CNTs as a substitute for metallic interconnects as Wang expressly teaches that CNTs as a promising substitute for “metallic interconnects”, as CNTs can be chemically modified and various molecules may be attached to the CNTs with an aim to give the CNT new functional properties to better suit intended application (¶¶5-7). This is simply substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
With regards to claim 17;
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 15 therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14-18, and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent No. 5977861 issued to Duggal et al. that disclose constructions of a current limiting device can be made by a parallel current path containing a resistor, varistor, or other linear or nonlinear elements See at least Col. 5, lines 20-30, Col. 7, lines 10-18
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD whose telephone number is (303)297-4285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-6:00pm MT.
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, Michelle Bechtold can be reached at (571) 431-0762. 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.
/MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights