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 .
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1:
In line 3, the claim recites the step of adding a carbon nanotube into the polymeric material. However, it is not clear if the carbon nanotubes are added into the polymeric material which contains the graphene, or if the carbon nanotubes are added into a separate portion of the polymeric material. For the purpose of further examination, this step will be interpreted as the carbon nanotubes are added into the polymeric material containing the dispersed graphene.
In line 6, the claim references a polymeric material film. However, it is not clear if this polymeric material film must be the same as the polymeric material first recited in line 2, or if it can be a completely different material. For the purpose of further examination, the polymeric material film will be interpreted as being a different and separate material from the polymeric material previously recited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the obtained composite material" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this limitation will be interpreted as referring to the composite material of line 5.
In line 7, the claim recites the step of pre-embedding carbon fibers. However, it is unclear into what these carbon fibers are embedded, and when they are embedded as it is not clear as to when the “pre” refers. For the purpose of further examination, it will be interpreted that the carbon fibers are embedded into either the polymeric material film or the composite material and that this step may have occurred at any time.
In line 8, the claim recites the step of heating and curing to obtain a sensor. However, it is not clear what is heated and cured, i.e., at which step of the method does the heating and curing occur. Is this step performed on a material containing graphene and carbon nanotubes, the composite material with the polymeric material film attached, or some other possibility? For the purpose of further examination, this step will be interpreted as being performed on the composite material with the attached polymeric material film and containing carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 3, this claim recites the duration of a mechanical stirring. However, it is not clear when this mechanical stirring takes place and what is mechanically stirred. For the purpose of further examination, this limitation will be interpreted as referring to the dispersing of the graphene into the polymeric material described in claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, in line 2, the claim recites the limitation the polymeric material. However, it is not clear if this refers to the polymeric material, the polymeric material film, or both. For the purpose of further examination, this limitation will be interpreted as referring to the polymeric material first referenced in line 2 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, in lines 2 and 3, the claim recites a mass ratio of graphene and a mass ratio of the carbon nanotubes. However, it is not clear if the mass ratio is relative to the flexible sensor as a whole, or relative to the composite material. For the purpose of further examination, the mass ratios will be interpreted as being relative to the composite material containing both the graphene and carbon nanotubes.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the limitation "the mixed composite material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this limitation will be interpreted as referring to the composite material in line 5 of claim 1.
Additionally, it is unclear what the phrase “before use” means in line 2. Is this before curing of the sensor as a whole, before use of the sensor, before use of the composite material in some manner? For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will simply be interpreted as broad and will be met with a curing agent being added at some point to the composite material.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation "the obtained polymeric material" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this limitation will be interpreted as referring to the composite material containing graphene and carbon nanotubes.
Regarding claim 9, in line 3, the claim recites that the carbon fibers are embedded at two ends. First, it is unclear to what the “two ends” refers; and second, claim 1 states that the carbon fibers are “pre-embedded.” Are the fibers embedded during the heating and curing as described in claim 9, or pre-embedded in some way as described in claim 1. For the purpose of further examination, this limitation will be treated as being very broad and will be met by carbon fibers being embedded at some point into the flexible sensor.
Regarding claims 2, 6, and 10, these claims depend from a rejected claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also rejected.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights