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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026, with respect to Jeong (KR 10-1885130 B1, Jeong J. et al.; cited in prior PTO-892, hereinafter “Jeong”) not disclosing the claim limitations amended claim 8 (amended to incorporate the features of original claim 9) and therefore claims 8, 10-11, and 15 having an improper rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 (see “Remarks”, pages 7-9) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, Applicant argues that Jeong’s method does not perform two distinct rotations for the same fibers. Examiner would draw Applicant’s attention to Figs. 1-2 (see Image 1 below), where the first fiber [core yarn] is twisted with the second fiber [first pressing yarn] a plurality of times.
As can be seen in Fig. 1, Jeong’s first pressing yarn has a plurality of twists, and therefore teaches at least two distinct rotations for the same fibers. Further, in the Non-Final Rejection Examiner stated Jeong discloses an embodiment where the first and second pressing yarns were made of the same fiber as an alternative option, meaning that not only does Jeong teach a plurality of twists of a first and second fiber in one direction (as claimed in original claim 9, now amended claim 8), but Jeong also teaches a plurality of twists of a first fiber and a separate second fiber (namely, a third fiber) in an opposite direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
936
1040
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1 – Jeong Fig. 1, Annotated
Secondly, Applicant argues that Jeong fails to suggest that the densification solution is applied to a twisted first and second fiber. Although Examiner agrees that some of the examples Jeong provided for densification solutions are indeed applied before the core fiber and first pressing yarn are twisted – Examiner would draw Applicant’s attention to Jeong page. 7 paras. 8-9 where Jeong discloses:
“At this time, when the first and second coverings have the same twist direction, warping of the yarn occurs. Therefore, if the first twist is in the Z direction, the second twist gives a twist in the S direction, Is preferably 10 to 20% less than the first twist number. After that, set the steam at 80 ~ 85 ℃ in the steam set to stabilize the covering.”
As plainly stated by Jeong, the steam application [densification solution] can also occur after the first and second fibers are twisted, and therefore Jeong discloses the claim limitation as written.
As such, Examiner is unpersuaded that the rejection of claims 8, 10-11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102 – and by extension the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. §103 – should be withdrawn, and therefore the rejections stand [although the claim limitations of claim 9 have been incorporated into claim 8, the claim limitations remain unchanged].
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7, and 13-14 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.
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.
4. Claims 20-21 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a densified second fiber" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As written, it is unclear if the “densified second fiber” is the aforementioned second fiber in densified form, or if this a wholly separate densified fiber from the second fiber. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret “densified second fiber” to mean “second fiber”.
Claim 21 is dependent upon claim 20, and therefore inherits the deficiencies described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang (US 20080170982 A1, Zhang M. et al.; cited in prior PTO-892, hereinafter "Zhang").
In regard to claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 20-21, Zhang teaches a strain sensor {para. [0416] describes the nanofiber yarn being used as a stress or strain sensor} comprising: a conductive elastic yarn [nanofiber yarn] comprising: a first fiber comprising a fiber yarn {nanotube forest, described in par. [0416]}, and a second fiber having electrical conductivity and a sheet shape {deformable nanotube sheets, para. [0416]}; a pair of wiring members electrically connected to both ends of the conductive elastic yarn {para. [0694], metal leads - although para. [0694] describes the use of metal leads to conduct electricity through the yarn, it would be obvious to instead monitor the stress and strain responses as described in para. [0416]}; and electrical connections between the conductive elastic yarn and the wiring members, wherein the electrical connections comprise a conductive paste {para. [0694] silver paste}, and wherein the conductive elastic yarn is twisted in a coil shape [Fig. 3B shows the yarn twisted in a coil shape],
wherein at least one layer of the second fiber is arranged around the first fiber [Fig. 3 shows a plurality of fibers being arranged about each other, namely Fig. 3B shows a twisted pair of fibers],
wherein the first fiber comprises spandex {paras. [0524]-[0526] describe using spandex as a fiber option, Example 32 is an embodiment of a strain sensor as described in para. [0416], para. [0711] describes the type of spandex used}, and the second fiber comprises a carbon nanotube {para. [0058] describes using carbon nanotubes as a fiber option},
wherein a number of layers of the at least one layer of the second fiber arranged around the first fiber corresponds to a range of electrical resistance values of the conductive elastic yarn subject to a range of strains {para. [0416] describes how the values of the nanotube sheet can be monitored for changes},
wherein the electrical connections are heat-treated {para. [0332] describes the manufacture process of nanofiber yarn strain sensors (Example 32), Fig. 53 shows said manufacturing process which shows the use of a dryer 5307},
wherein the first fiber and the second fiber are twisted such that: at least one first rotation of a first end of the first fiber and a corresponding first end of the second fiber relative to a second end of the first fiber and a corresponding second end of the second fiber is performed [shown in Fig. 3B]; and a second rotation of the first end of the first fiber and the corresponding first end of a second fiber relative to the second end of the first fiber and the corresponding second end of the second fiber is performed [shown in Fig. 3B], and
wherein a densification solution is applied to the second fiber rotated according to the at least one first rotation {para. [0216] describes that creating a yarn can be performed as a liquid-densification-based spinning process – thus it is obvious that the attachment process of the carbon nanotube sheet and elastic material described in paras. [0332], [0416], and [0711] and shown in Fig. 53 could be twisting the fibers (as described throughout Zhang) – and Fig. 53 shows the twisted fiber entering a densification liquid 5306}.
6. Claims 8, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeong.
In regard to claims 8, 10-11, and 15, Jeong discloses a method of manufacturing a strain sensor [strain gauge], comprising: fixing both ends of a first fiber [Fig. 1 shows the core yarn stretched between two reels]; tensioning the first fiber having both ends fixed [page 5 para. 4 describes placing the fibers - to include the core yarn - in a mold; page 6 para. 13 describes stretching the core yarn while the first fiber is being wound]; arranging at least one ply of a second fiber [first pressing yarn] around the tensioned first fiber [page 6 para. 12 describes the first pressing yarn being spirally wound around the core yarn], wherein the second fiber forms a sheet and is electrically conductive [Fig. 2 shows the first pressing yarn having a sheet shape, and page 6 para. 12 describes the first pressing yarn as being silver coated or made of stainless steel]; twisting the first fiber and the second fiber to produce a conductive elastic yarn [page 6 para. 12 describes the yarns being spirally wound around each other, shown in Fig. 1]; and coupling wires to both ends of the conductive elastic yarn [interconnection technology between yarns and sensors described in page 7 para. 14, wherein conductive yarns can be used as wiring],
wherein the twisting the first fiber and the second fiber comprises: performing at least one first rotation of a first end of the first fiber and a corresponding first end of the second fiber relative to a second end of the first fiber and a corresponding second end of the second fiber [shown in Fig. 1, page 6 para. 15 describes one twist pre rotation of the core yarn by the first pressing yarn]; applying a densification solution to the rotated first and second fibers [page 7 paras. 8-9 describe applying steam to the rotated fibers]; and performing a second rotation of the first end of the first fiber and the corresponding first end of the densified second fiber relative to the second end of the first fiber and the corresponding second end of the second fiber [Figs. 1-2 show a plurality of twists of the core yarn and first pressing yarn],
during the second rotation moving the first ends of the first and second fibers toward the second ends of the first and second fibers [shown in Fig. 1, fibers are wound in the same longitudinal direction (bottom to top)],
wherein the moving is at a speed determined based on at least one of: a rotation speed of the first ends of the first and second fibers, a number of plies of the second fiber arranged around the first fiber, or a total number of rotations of the first rotation and the second rotation [page 8 describes a plurality of examples where different speeds affected a different number of plies of the first covering yarn around the core fiber, as well as the second covering yarn; page 7 para. 8 further describes a preferred embodiment where the second twist is 10-20% less revolutions than the number of first twist revolutions], and
further comprising selecting a number of plies of the second fiber to be arranged around the tensioned first fiber based on an electrical resistance value corresponding to: a strain value, and a number of plies of the second fiber [page 8 has a table showing the electrical resistance corresponding to a number of twists of both the first and second pressing yarns, with relation to strain].
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 nonobviousness.
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.
7. Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 20-21 above, and further in view of Jeong.
In regard to claim 4, Zhang teaches that the nanofiber yarn should be able to stretch at least 100% before deformation {para. [0525]}, but is silent as to the fiber stretching up to 400% of its initial unstretched length before deformation.
However, Jeong teaches that the conductive elastic yarn [spandex yarn] is configured to return elastically to an initial unstretched length after stretching elastically up to 400% of the initial unstretched length [page 6 para. 12 describes the spandex yarn resisting deformation from stretching up to 4.5 or 450%].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Jeong’s improved elastic stretching requirement as Zhang’s elastic stretching requirement in order to have a more uniform core, as described by Jeong [page 6 para. 12].
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Tark (KR 10-20180096141 A, Tark J.; cited in prior PTO-892, hereinafter “Tark”).
In regard to claim 12, Jeong teaches the method of manufacturing a strain sensor of claim 9, further comprising: after applying the densification solution and before performing the second rotation [page 3 para. 6-10 describes covering the first pressing yarn with a silver paste after being wrapped around the core yarn].
Jeong is silent as to waiting a drying time to allow the applied densification solution to dry.
However, Tark also teaches manufacturing a strain sensor comprised of a conductive yarn [carbon nanotube-silver nanobelt] and using a densification solution [methanol coagulating bath], as well as waiting a drying time to allow the applied densification solution to dry [page 5 para. 10 describes running a carbon nanotube-silver nanobelt through a methanol coagulating bath and then thermally drying the yarn at 70°C].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Tark’s method of waiting a drying time to allow an applied densification solution to dry with Jeong’s method of using a densification solution before performing a second rotation in order to better obtain conducive fibers, as described by Tark [page 5 para. 10].
9. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Zhang.
In regard to claims 13-14, Jeong is not specific to how the wiring and conductive elastic yarn is mechanically coupled, nor is it specific as to the electrical coupling using a conductive paste and that said conductive paste is heat-treated.
However, Zhang teaches electrically and mechanically connecting a nanotube yarn to metal leads using a silver paste {para. [0694] – although this embodiment is for the purpose of supplying sufficient voltage to the yarn in order for it to operate as incandescent filament, it is obvious that by doing so the fiber is securely connected both electrically and mechanically}, and it is a well-known engineering practice that some silver-pastes have to be heat-treated in order to fully cure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Zhang’s use of silver paste to connect Jeong’s conductive elastic yarn in order to better transmit voltage change from the metal leads to the yarn, as taught by Zhang {para. [0694]}.
Conclusion
9. 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 DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30 PST.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/DANIEL M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855