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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant filed a response and amended claim 10-12 and 16-19 on 04/14/2026.
The 112(b) rejections of 12, 16, 17, and 19 are withdrawn in view of amendments.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The revised rejection below addresses the amendments.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 20, Applicant argues “the polymer solution”, “the conductive nanoparticles”, and “the films” are not indefinite because the elements are defined in claim 10.
Examiner clarifies “the polymer solution”, “the conductive nanoparticles”, and “the films” lack clarity, not due to a lack of antecedent basis, but due to the presence of at least three metamaterial laminates (see claim 16, upon which claim 20 depends).
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 10-20 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.
Claim 10 recites “the metamaterial laminate is operating within the terahertz spectral region of 0.1- 3 Thz”.
There appears to be a lack of antecedent basis for “the terahertz spectral region” The limitation will be interpreted as “a terahertz spectral region”.
Because the limitation is in a wherein clause and there is no steps present that requires using or operating the metamaterial laminate, it is unclear how the metamaterial laminate operates within a spectral region. It is unclear if this requires a step of utilizing the metamaterial laminate within a terahertz spectral region or if the metamaterial laminate is operable within a terahertz spectral region.
For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to require the metamaterial laminate is operable within the claimed terahertz spectral region.
Claim 20 recites “the polymer solution”; “the conductive nanoparticles”; and “the films”. However, it is unclear which of the plurality of polymer solutions, conductive nanoparticles, and films of the three metamaterial laminates within the metamaterial stack is being referenced.
For examination purposes, claim 20 will be interpreted as the following:
“wherein for each of the metamaterial laminates:
the polymer solution comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyurethane, and combinations thereof;
the conductive nanoparticles are selected from the group consisting of graphene, gold, nickel, aluminum, and combinations thereof; and
the films are polymer films formed from one or more polymers selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, polydimethylsiloxane and parylene.”
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.
Claims 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (PG-PUB 2019/0145752) in view of Kim (PG-PUG 2014/0065422), He (WO 2021/102512), and Keller (PG-PUB 2022/0268663).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu teaches a method comprising a strain sensor [0004], comprising:
electrospinning a polymer solution so as to produce a carbon nanofiber mesh (Figure 1 and [0046]-[0047], [0049]);
sandwiching the polymer mesh between polyurethane substrates to produce a metamaterial laminate (Figure 1 and [0044], [0048]), wherein the polyurethane substrates are formed by casting a polyurethane film on the mesh [0050].
Zhu does not teach (1) electrospinning a polymer solution containing conductive nanoparticles so as to produce a polymer nanofiber mesh embedded with conductive nanoparticles; (2) pressing the nanofiber mesh between two films; and (3) the metamaterial laminate is operable within a terahertz spectral region of 0.1-3 Thz.
As to (1), Kim teaches forming a stretchable conductive nanofiber structure that maintain conductivity during a strain process for use in sensors (Figures 1 and 3 and [0005]-[0006], [0008]). Kim teaches the stretchable conductive nanofiber structure includes a polymer nano fiber and one-dimensional conductive nanoparticles within the polymer nanofiber [0036]. Kim teaches the polymer nano fiber may include the polymer may include polyurethane (PU), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyethylene oxide (PEO), nylon, polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA), or mixtures thereof [0037]. Kim teaches the particles may be carbon-based materials or particles of gold, silver, nickel or an alloy thereof [0041]-[0042]. Kim teaches forming a conductive nanofiber composition comprising the polymer and conductive nanoparticles and electrospinning the composition (Figure 2 and [0049]). Kim teaches in the stretchable conductive nanofiber, the one-dimensional conductive nanoparticles within the polymer nanofiber may form a percolation network [0049] such that when the polymer nanofiber is elongated, the percolation network of the one-dimensional conductive nanoparticles may be maintained, thus maintaining an electrical path [0043], making the structure suitable use in stretchable electrode and motion sensors [0043].
Both Zhu and Kim are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to electrospinning conductive nanofibers for use in sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu with the electrospinning technique of Kim, a known suitable technique for producing a functional layer with a percolation network for use in a stretchable electrode, to yield the predictable result of providing an effective piezoresistive layer for use in a strain sensor.
As to (2), He teaches manufacturing a piezoresistive sensor (Page 21, lns 1- page 22, ln 5), comprising a conductive layer of an ultralight piezoresistive foam material (UPFM) and outer layers of an elastic substrate (Figure 2 and Page 15, ln 3-Page 17, ln 1). He teaches the UPFM is encapsulated by the elastic substrate, the elastic substrate is molded around the UPFM, or the UPFM is located between two layers of elastic substrate (Page 19, lns 5-22). He teaches the elastic substrate can be selected from polysiloxanes (e.g. poly( dimethyl siloxane)), natural rubbers, styrene-butadiene block copolymers, polyisoprene, polybutadiene, ethylene propylene rubber, ethylene propylene diene rubber, fluoro-elastomers, polyurethane elastomers and nitrile rubbers (Page 13, ln 5-31).
Both Zhu and He are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing strain sensors comprising elastic substrates encapsulating conductive layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the teachings of He that conductive layers in strain sensors can be encapsulated in elastic substrates using different techniques, such as molding the elastic substrate directly on the conductive layer or providing preformed elastic substrates, to yield the same predictable result of encapsulating the conductive layer as taught by He. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu with the technique of encapsulating the conductive layer by pressing the conductive layer between two preformed layers of elastic substrates, a suitable technique as taught by He, to yield the predictable result of providing an encapsulated conductive layer as desired by Zhu.
As to (3), Keller teaches non-destructive testing apparatus for assessing strain in structural components (Figures 5, 7, and 8). Keller teaches structural components include induced predetermined regions having materials of varying density, including induced geometric patterns of differing densities within the structural component that can be a composite material structural component [0085]- [0087]. Keller teaches the method includes projecting waves of energy, that can be beams of Terahertz electromagnetic (EM) energy and/or waves of ultrasonic (UT) energy, into or through the structural component to evaluate the predetermined induced pattern region of varying density and determining existing strain within a structural component based on the detected energy response (Figure 12 and [0028], [0068]-[0069], [0083]). Keller teaches the detectable deflected waves can be detected and correlated to internal strain that is determined to be present in (or absent from) at least the structural component substrate sub-surface regions; including evidence of strain, damage, deformation, delamination, etc., in the structural component regions (e.g., damage that would not be visibly detectable from a surface inspection of the structural component) [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu in view of Kim and He with the sensor application of Keller, a known suitable usage of strain sensors for monitoring structural health as desired by Zhu.
Regarding claim 11, Zhu in view of Kim, He, and Keller teaches the process as applied to claim 10, the process further comprising:
using the metamaterial laminate within a structure (Zhu, [0042] and Keller, [0091]-[0095]), and
scanning the structure with a terahertz scanning instrument to determine strain distribution within the structure (Keller, Figure 12 and [0028], [0068]-[0069], [0083]), wherein the said terahertz scanning instrument is operating in the range between 0.1-3 Thz [0069], [0099], and [0101].
Regarding claim 12, Zhu in view of Kim, He, and Keller teaches the process as applied to claim 10, wherein the metamaterial laminate has reversibly deformable characteristics for quantitatively recovering the amount of strain currently experienced by the composition (Zhu, [0004], [0043]-[0044], [0051]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhu in view of Kim, He, and Keller teaches the process as applied to claim 10, wherein the polymer solution comprising polyurethane (Kim, [0037] and [0046]) and the conductive nanoparticles are selected from the group consisting of gold and nickel (Kim, [0041] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 14, Zhu in view of Kim, He, and Keller teaches the process as applied to claim 10, wherein the films are polymer films (Zhu, Figure 1 and [0044], [0048] and He, Page 13, ln 5-31).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zhu (PG-PUB 2019/0145752) in view of Kim (PG-PUG 2014/0065422), He (WO 2021/102512), and Keller (PG-PUB 2022/0268663), as applied to claim 14, in further view of Warner (PG-PUB 2022/0015719).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu in view of Kim, He, and Keller teaches the process as applied to claim 14, wherein the films are polymer films (Zhu, Figure 1 and [0044], [0048] and He, Page 13, ln 5-31).
Zhu in view of Kim, He, and Keller does not teach the polymer films are formed from polypropylene.
Warner teaches a sensor for use in imaging applications (Abstract). Warner teaches the sensor may further comprise a film of polymer applied on top of each graphene film [0060]. Warner teaches the piezoelectric polymer is sandwiched between two layers of graphene, wherein the two layers of graphene are then sandwiched between two layers of the additional polymer, and the additional polymer may serve to protect the graphene and piezoelectric material from the outside environment [0060]. Warner teaches the polymer comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene or polyethylene, and more preferably polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu in view of Kim, He, and Keller with polypropylene films, a known suitable polymeric film for protective graphene and piezoelectric material from the outside environment as taught by Warner, to yield the predictable result of providing protective polymeric films.
Claim 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zhu (PG-PUB 2019/0145752) in view of Kim (PG-PUG 2014/0065422), He (WO 2021/102512), and Keller (PG-PUB 2022/0268663), as applied to claim 10, in further view of Wood (PG-PUB 2014/0238153) and Rivera (PG-PUB 2025/0053237).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu in view of Kim, He, and Keller teaches the process as applied to claim 10.
Zhu in view of Kim, He, and Keller does not teach stacking and fusing together two or more metamaterial laminates so that each metamaterial laminate forms a metamaterial layer in the resulting metamaterial stack.
Wood teaches a multi-layer strain sensor (Figure 5 and 6 and [0066], [0068]). Wood teaches two unidirectional strain sensors are arranged with their strain axes orthogonal to provide strain sensing in the X and Y dimension and a pressure sensor is provided on the top layer to sense pressure in the Z dimension [0068]-[0069]. Wood teaches using the combination of the signals from the three sensors, the device can detect and distinguish three different stimuli: x-axis strain, y-axis strain, and z-axis
pressure (Figure 6a and [0069]), wherein all three sensor layers can be connected
through interconnects between layers, making one circuit that is electrically equivalent to three variable resistors connected in series [0069].Wood teaches the multi-modal sensor can be fabricated using a layered molding and casting process (Figure 8 and [0070]).
Rivera teaches the strain sensor 102 is a laminate structure in that individual layers of the medium 106 are separately formed, stacked, and unitized together to create the medium 106 as a whole [0055], [0126]. Rivera teaches a laminate assembly can include unitizing layers of the laminate structure using heat and/or pressure and/or a curing operation [0055]. Rivera teaches the laminate can be connected to other structures, including traces and other sensors [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the strain sensor configuration of Zhu in view of Kim and He with a plurality of unidirectional metamaterial laminates stacked in different orientations, for the benefit of detecting and distinguishing stimuli in different directions as taught by Wood.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu in view of Kim, He, and Wood with the laminating technique of Rivera, a known suitable technique for stacking and integrating a plurality of metamaterial laminates for producing strain sensor(s) suitable for more complex applications.
Regarding claim 17, Zhu in view of Kim, He, Keller, Wood, and Rivera teaches the process as applied to claim 16, wherein the metamaterial laminate has reversibly deformable characteristics for quantitatively recovering the amount of strain currently experienced by the composition (Zhu, [0004], [0043]-[0044], [0051]-[0056] and Wood, [0068]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 18, Zhu in view of Kim, He, Keller, Wood, and Rivera teaches the process as applied to claim 17, further comprising:
using the metamaterial stack within a stack for structural health monitoring (Zhu, [0042] and Keller, [0091]-[0095]);
scanning the structure with a terahertz scanning instrument to determine strain distribution within the structure (Keller, Figure 12 and [0028], [0068]-[0069], [0083]), wherein the said terahertz scanning instrument is operating in the range between 0.1-3 THz (Keller, [0069], [0099]).
Regarding claim 19, Zhu in view of Kim, He, Keller, Wood, and Rivera teaches the process as applied to claim 18, wherein each metamaterial layer has different threshold stress responses (Wood, Figure 6 and [0068]-[0070]) so when the amount strain exceeds a specific limit value, a change will be detected and record for quantitatively assessing the amount of strain experienced and whether the strain recorded is abnormal (i.e., accessing the amount of strain experienced historically by the structure) (Wood, [0090] and Keller, [0091]-[0095]).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zhu (PG-PUB 2019/0145752) in view of Kim (PG-PUG 2014/0065422), He (WO 2021/102512), Keller (PG-PUB 2022/0268663), Wood (PG-PUB 2014/0238153) and Rivera (PG-PUB 2025/0053237) as applied to claim 19, in further view of Warner (PG-PUB 2022/0015719).
Regarding claim 20, Zhu in view of Kim, He, Keller, Wood, and Rivera teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the polymer solution comprising polyurethane (Kim, [0037] and [0046]) and the conductive nanoparticles are selected from the group consisting of gold and nickel (Kim, [0041] and [0047]), the films are polymer films (Zhu, Figure 1 and [0044], [0048] and He, Page 13, ln 5-31).
Zhu in view of Kim, He, Keller, Wood, and Rivera does not teach the polymer films are formed from polypropylene.
Warner teaches a sensor for use in imaging applications (Abstract). Warner teaches the sensor may further comprise a film of polymer applied on top of each graphene film [0060]. Warner teaches the piezoelectric polymer is sandwiched between two layers of graphene, wherein the two layers of graphene are then sandwiched between two layers of the additional polymer, and the additional polymer may serve to protect the graphene and piezoelectric material from the outside environment [0060]. Warner teaches the polymer comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene or polyethylene, and more preferably polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu in view of Kim and He with polypropylene films, a known suitable polymeric film for protective graphene and piezoelectric material from the outside environment as taught by Warner, to yield the predictable result of providing protective polymeric films.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights