DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 02/10/2026. Claims 1-13 are pending. A final action on the merits of claims 1-13 is as follows.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims are acknowledged and entered accordingly. As a result, the claim objections and 35 USC 112 rejections of the previous office action are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling (Ling, Zheng, et. al., “Flexible and conductive MXene films and nanocomposites with high capacitance”, PNAS, Nov 25, 2014) in view of Burles (U.S. PGPub No. 2009/0021697).
Regarding claims 1-2, Ling teaches A biosignal sensing electrode (see Fig 1) comprising: a conductive composite material containing particles of a layered material including one or plural layers and a polymer, the conductive composite material defining a contact surface with a subject, wherein the one or plural layers include a layer body comprising Ti3C2 and having a modifier or terminal T existing on a surface of the layer body (Pg 16677 and Fig 1, disclosing Ti3C2T layer with a polymer), wherein the modifier or terminal T is at least one selected from the group consisting of a hydroxyl group, a fluorine atom, a chlorine atom, an oxygen atom, or a hydrogen atom (Intro on pg 16676, MXene is terminated by O, F, or OH group), the polymer is a hydrophilic polymer having a polar group, and the polar group is a group that forms a hydrogen bond with the modifier or terminal T of the one or plural layers (Fig 1 OH group of PVA is a polar group of a hydrophilic polymer that forms H bond with terminal T of Ti3C2T). Ling further teaches where the polymer is PVA and is selected based on PVA’s solubility in water and large concentration of hydroxyl groups (Pg 16677, left column)
Ling fails to teach wherein the polymer is one or more selected from the group consisting of water-soluble polyurethane.
In related prior art, Burles teaches the use of a water-soluble polyurethane polymer ([0034]; it is noted Burles discloses PVA and water soluble polyurethane as interchangeable). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymer of Ling in view of Burles to incorporate a water-soluble polyurethane to arrive at claims 1-2. Doing so would obvious to try as Ling discloses polymer selection based on water solubility (Pg 16677) and a water soluble polyurethane is a well-known water soluble polymer, thus it would be obvious to try a water soluble polyurethane in place of the PVA to study and determine the effectiveness of said material selection in MXene and polymer composite films as contemplated by Ling (Pg 16677).
Regarding claim 4, Ling teaches wherein a ratio of the particles of the layered material is 52 mass% to 83 mass% (Table 1 on page 16679 discloses embodiments with MXene wt% between 52-83mass%; it is noted mass % is the same as wt% in this instance).
Regarding claim 5, Ling teaches wherein a ratio of the particles of the layered material is more than 83 mass% and 94 mass% or less (Table 1 on page 16679 discloses embodiment with MXene wt% of 90%).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling in view of Longinotti-Buitoni (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0318699).
Regarding claim 3, Ling teaches A biosignal sensing electrode comprising: a conductive composite material containing particles of a layered material including one or plural layers and a polymer (Pg 16677 and Fig 1, disclosing Ti3C2T layer with a polymer), the conductive composite material defining a contact surface with a subject (Fig 1 MXene/PVA film has contact surface), wherein the one or plural layers include a layer body comprising Ti3C2 and having a modifier or terminal T existing on a surface of the layer body (Pg 16677 and Fig 1, disclosing Ti3C2T layer with a polymer), wherein the modifier or terminal T is at least one selected from the group consisting of a hydroxyl group, a fluorine atom, a chlorine atom, an oxygen atom, or a hydrogen atom (Intro on pg 16676, MXene is terminated by O, F, or OH group), the polymer is a hydrophilic polymer having a polar group, and the polar group is a group that forms a hydrogen bond with the modifier or terminal T of the one or plural layers (Fig 1 OH group of PVA is a polar group of a hydrophilic polymer that forms H bond with terminal T of Ti3C2T).
Ling fails to teach a ratio of the particles of the layered material is higher on the contact surface with the subject as compared with a 1/2 position of a thickness of the conductive composite material in a cross section of the electrode perpendicular to the contact surface with the subject.
In related prior art, Longinotti-Buitoni teaches a similar device wherein a similar conductive composite material has varying concentration of conductive particles ([0450]) such that a ratio of the particles of the layered material is higher on the contact surface with the subject as compared with a 1/2 position of a thickness of the conductive composite material in a cross section of the electrode perpendicular to the contact surface with the subject ([0450] step gradient of conductive ink particles would yield at least two conductive composite materials with one having a higher ratio of particles than the second conductive composite material; [0093] also disclosing gradient decreases as you move upwards through the structure towards the elastic adhesive layer). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite material of Ling in view of Longinotti-Buitoni to incorporate a varying concentration of the particles to arrive at claim 3. Doing so would advantageously provide for greater stretchability while remaining conductive ([0150]).
Regarding claim 6, Ling teaches A biosignal sensing electrode comprising: a conductive composite material containing particles of a layered material including one or plural layers and a polymer (Pg 16677 and Fig 1, disclosing Ti3C2T layer with a polymer), the conductive composite material defining a contact surface with a subject (Fig 1 MXene/PVA film has contact surface), wherein the one or plural layers include a layer body comprising Ti3C2 and having a modifier or terminal T existing on a surface of the layer body (Pg 16677 and Fig 1, disclosing Ti3C2T layer with a polymer), wherein the modifier or terminal T is at least one selected from the group consisting of a hydroxyl group, a fluorine atom, a chlorine atom, an oxygen atom, or a hydrogen atom (Intro on pg 16676, MXene is terminated by O, F, or OH group), the polymer is a hydrophilic polymer having a polar group, and the polar group is a group that forms a hydrogen bond with the modifier or terminal T of the one or plural layers (Fig 1 OH group of PVA is a polar group of a hydrophilic polymer that forms H bond with terminal T of Ti3C2T); and a first ratio of the particles of the layered material at the contact surface with the subject is more than 83 mass% and 94 mass% or less (Table 1 shows embodiment with 90 wt%). Ling further teaches a second ratio of the particles of the layered material in the second conductive composite material is 52 mass% to 83 mass% (Table 1 on page 16679 discloses embodiment with MXene wt% of 60 or 80%)
Ling fails to teach a second ratio of the particles of the layered material at a 1/2 position of a thickness of the conductive composite material in a cross section of the electrode perpendicular to the contact surface with the subject is 52 mass% to 83 mass%.
In related prior art, Longinotti-Buitoni teaches a similar device wherein a similar conductive composite material has varying concentration of conductive particles ([0450]) such that a ratio of the particles of the layered material is higher on the contact surface with the subject as compared with a 1/2 position of a thickness of the conductive composite material in a cross section of the electrode perpendicular to the contact surface with the subject ([0450] step gradient of conductive ink particles would yield at least two conductive composite materials with one having a higher ratio of particles than the second conductive composite material; [0093] also disclosing gradient decreases as you move upwards through the structure towards the elastic adhesive layer with a gradient between 40-60% wt%). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite material of Ling in view of Longinotti-Buitoni to incorporate a varying concentration of the particles such that at a ½ position of a thickness of the composite material the particle mass% is 52 mass% to 83 mass% to arrive at claim 6. Doing so would advantageously provide for greater stretchability while remaining conductive ([0150]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ling in view of Longinotti-Buitoni to use 52 mass% to 83 mass% of at the ½ position as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling in view of Burles and Baker (U.S. PGPub No. 2008/0139953).
Regarding claims 7-8, Ling/Burles teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above.
Ling fails to explicitly teach a conductive material substrate supporting the conductive composite material.
In related prior art, Baker teaches a similar device comprising a conductive material substrate supporting the conductive composite material ([0045] Fig 2, discloses conductive silver/silver chloride substrates supporting conductive composite material); wherein a material of the conductive material substrate comprises at least one gold, silver, copper, platinum, nickel, titanium, tin, iron, zinc, magnesium, aluminum, tungsten, molybdenum, and a conductive polymer (([0045] Fig 2, discloses conductive silver/silver chloride substrates supporting conductive composite material). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ling in view of Burles and Baker to incorporate a silver conductive material substrate supporting the conductive composite material to arrive at claims 7-8. Doing so would advantageously provide the device with a conductive substrate capable of transmitting physiological signals from a contact surface of the composite material to the substrate and further downstream for processing ([0045]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling in view of Burles and Oskin (U.S. Patent No. 6,253,099).
Regarding claim 9, Ling/Burles teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Ling fails to explicitly teach wherein the contact surface defined by the conductive composite material is a convex surface.
In related prior art, Oskin teaches a similar biosignal sensing device wherein the contact surface defined by the conductive composite material is a convex curved surface (Figs 2-3, Col 4 lines 55-60). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact surface of Ling in view of Burles and Oskin to incorporate a convex contact surface to arrive at claim 9. Doing so would advantageously provide a contact surface that is convex to better conform to a skin surface and minimize radial forces applied to the user (Col 5 lines 19-45).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling in view of Burles and Kurzweil (U.S. PGPub No. 2008/0287770).
Regarding claim 10, Ling/Burles teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Ling fails to explicitly teach wherein the contact surface defined by the conductive composite material is a flat surface.
In related prior art, Kurzweil teaches a similar biosignal sensing device wherein the contact surface defined by the conductive composite material is a flat surface ([0011]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact surface of Ling in view of Burles and Kurzweil to incorporate a flat contact surface to arrive at claim 10. Doing so would advantageously provide a major surface that is flat to provide a large surface area to contact skin as is known in the art ([0011]).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling in view of Baker, and in further view of Longinotti-Buitoni (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0318699).
Regarding claim 11, the Ling/Burles/Baker combination teaches the device of claim 7 as stated above. Ling further teaches wherein the conductive composite material is a first conductive composite material (Fig 1) and further contemplates embodiments of the conductive composite material having wt% of 40, 60, 80, and 90% (Table 1).
Ling fails to teach the biosignal sensing electrode further comprises: a second conductive composite material between the first conductive composite material and the conductive material substrate, wherein the first conductive composite material has a higher ratio of the particles of the layered material than the second conductive composite material.
In related prior art, Longinotti-Buitoni teaches a similar device wherein a similar conductive composite material has varying concentration of conductive particles ([0450]) such that a first conductive composite material has a higher ratio of the particles of the layered material than the second conductive composite material ([0450] step gradient of conductive ink particles would yield at least two conductive composite materials with one having a higher ratio of particles than the second conductive composite material). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite material of Ling in view of Burles, Baker and Longinotti-Buitoni to incorporate a second composite material having a smaller ratio of particles in the layered material to arrive at claim 11. Doing so would advantageously provide for greater stretchability while remaining conductive ([0150]).
Regarding claim 12, the Ling/Burles/Baker/Longinotti-Buitoni combination teaches the device of claim 11 as stated above. Ling further teaches wherein the ratio of the particles of the layered material in the first conductive composite material is more than 83 mass% and 94 mass% or less (Table 1 on page 16679 discloses embodiment with MXene wt% of 90%).
Regarding claim 13, the Ling/Burles/Baker/Longinotti-Buitoni combination teaches the device of claim 11 as stated above. Ling further teaches wherein a first ratio of the particles of the layered material in the first conductive composite material is more than 83 mass% and 94 mass% or less (Table 1 on page 16679 discloses embodiment with MXene wt% of 90%), and a second ratio of the particles of the layered material in the second conductive composite material is 52 mass% to 83 mass% (Table 1 on page 16679 discloses embodiment with MXene wt% of 60 or 80%). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite material of Ling in view of Baker and Longinotti-Buitoni to incorporate a second composite material having a smaller ratio of particles in the layered material between 52% to 83% mass% to arrive at claim 13. Doing so would advantageously provide for greater stretchability while remaining conductive ([0150]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 regarding claims 3 and 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Longinotti-Buitoni discloses use of a conductive gradient for “greater stretchability while remaining conductive”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In the instant case, the applicant is arguing that the claimed configuration provides enhanced conductivity for skin impedance reduction. The Ling reference discloses various concentrations of MXene particles in Table 1 on page 16679 with their corresponding material properties based on said concentration. These disclosed ranges overlap with the applicant’s claimed ranges of 52%-83% and 83% to 94%. Meanwhile, the Longinotti-Buitoni discloses that the use of a gradient of a conductive composition can improve the stretchability while sustaining conductivity ([0093] [0150] [0450]). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the flexible and conductive films of Ling in view of Longinotti-Buitoni to incorporate the gradient of concentration of conductive particles to improve the stretchability and flexibility of said films while maintaining conductivity.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the Burles reference as previously applied to claim 2.
Conclusion
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 Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 EST.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794