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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 14-30) in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 1-13 are cancelled and new claims 17-30 are included in elected Group II. Claims 14-30 are currently pending.
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 is 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 23: It is not clear if the conducting track in claim 23 is same as or different from one of the conducting layers in claim 14. For the purpose of examination, and in view of [0032] and [0144] of the specification, the conducting track in claim 23 is referring to one of the conducting layers in claim 14.
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.
Claims 14-21 and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al. (US 2020/0008299 A1).
Claim 14: Tran teaches a biodegradable system comprising a biodegradable substrate and a biodegradable power source printed on the biodegradable substrate [0028], wherein the biodegradable substrate is flexible and comprises cellulose nanofibril derived from wood ([0027] and [0029]). Tran teaches the printed biodegradable power source comprises inorganic conductive inkjet ink [0031]. The biodegradable system meets the claimed electrically conducting device, the biodegradable substrate meets the claimed substrate comprising the lignocellulosic material, and the biodegradable power source meets the claimed conducting layer.
Tran teaches the flexible substrate can be made of a cellulose nanofibril derived from wood [0029], and it can be made of a polymeric material including acrylate type [0056]. Tran does not teach the flexible substrate can be made of both the cellulose nanofibril derived from wood and the acrylate type polymeric material. However, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine separately taught prior art ingredients which perform the same function, it is logical that they would produce the same effect and supplement each other. The acrylate type polymeric material meets the claimed filling compound.
Tran teaches the flexible substrate can be made of a cellulose nanofibril derived from wood [0029], or it can be made of an inorganic-organic complex such as flexible ligand 1,3-bis(4-pyridyl)propane with Co(NCS)2xH2O [0057]. Tran does not teach the flexible substrate can be made of both the cellulose nanofibril derived from wood and the inorganic-organic complex. However, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine separately taught prior art ingredients which perform the same function, it is logical that they would produce the same effect and supplement each other. The inorganic-organic complex meets the claimed filling compound.
Claim 15: Tran teaches thin film circuits, sensors, transistors and resistors as suitable examples of the system/device [0041].
Claim 16: Tran teaches the system/device can be integrated into automotive and transportation engine control units and global positioning systems [0168].
Claim 17: Tran teaches the biodegradable substrate comprises cellulose nanofibril derived from wood [0029].
Claim 18: Tran teaches the biodegradable substrate is flexible and comprises cellulose nanofibril derived from wood ([0027] and [0029]). Since the substrate is flexible it is interpreted that the wood is at least partially delignified.
Claims 19 and 21: Tran teaches the flexible substrate can be made of a cellulose nanofibril derived from wood [0029], or it can be made of a polymeric material including acrylate type [0056]. Tran does not teach the flexible substrate can be made of both the cellulose nanofibril derived from wood and the acrylate type polymeric material. However, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine separately taught prior art ingredients which perform the same function, it is logical that they would produce the same effect and supplement each other. The acrylate type polymeric material meets the claimed filling compound.
With respect to the contents of the cellulose nanofibril derived from wood and the acrylate type polymeric material, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the contents of the cellulose nanofibril derived from wood and the acrylate type polymeric material, and the motivation would be to control flexibility, integrity and transparency of the flexible substrate. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 20 and 21: Tran teaches the flexible substrate can be made of a cellulose nanofibril derived from wood [0029], or it can be made of an inorganic-organic complex such as flexible ligand 1,3-bis(4-pyridyl)propane with Co(NCS)2xH2O [0057]. Tran does not teach the flexible substrate can be made of both the cellulose nanofibril derived from wood and the inorganic-organic complex. However, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine separately taught prior art ingredients which perform the same function, it is logical that they would produce the same effect and supplement each other. The inorganic-organic complex meets the claimed filling compound.
With respect to the contents of the cellulose nanofibril derived from wood and the inorganic-organic complex, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the contents of the cellulose nanofibril derived from wood and the inorganic-organic complex, and the motivation would be to control flexibility, integrity and transparency of the flexible substrate. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 23: Tran teaches the flexible substrate can be a planar substrate [0106]. See also Figs. 5A and 5B.
Claim 24: The flexible substrate of Tran meets the claimed plate. See also Figs. 5A and 5B.
Claim 25: Tran teaches the flexible substrate can be from about 10 nm to about 1 mm [0079] which overlaps with the claimed 10 mm or less.
Claim 26: Trans teaches the flexible substrate has high transparency and flexibility [0029]. With respect to the claimed light transmission coefficient, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a flexible transparent substrate with the claimed range of light transmission coefficient, and the motivation would be to control visible light passing through the substrate. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 27: The system/device of Tran can be transparent (Figs. 5A and 5B). Tran also teaches system/device can be integrated in a glass to activate the glass to change the glass between transparent and translucent, partially or fully blocking light while maintaining a clear view through the glass, if desired [0183] which suggests the system/device can be transparent.
Claim 28: Tran does not expressly teach its system/device is dimensionally unstable, thus it is interpreted that Tran’s system/device is dimensionally stabilized.
Claim 29: Tran teaches thin film circuits, sensors, transistors and resistors as suitable examples of the system/device, and are formed by depositing electrically function ink deposited on the flexible substrate [0041]. The thin film circuits, sensors, transistors and resistors meet the claimed network of electronic components.
Claim 30: Tran teaches the flexible substrate can be made of a cellulose nanofibril derived from wood [0029], or it can be made of a polymeric material including acrylate type [0056]. It is well established that the cellulose nanofibril derived from wood and the acrylate type polymeric material have electrical insulation property.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al. (US 2020/0008299 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Guo (US 2010/0061119 A1).
Tran teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 22: Tran teaches polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) as one of the suitable examples of the acrylate type polymeric material [0056] but does not teach the refractive index of the PMMA. However, Guo teaches a flexible circuit board comprising a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) having a refractive index of about 1.48 [0032]. Tran and Guo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the flexible circuit board art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the PMMA with a refractive index of 1.48 of Guo with the invention of Tran, and the motivation for combining would be to control the ambient light and/or radiation reflected of the substrate.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
February 4, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785