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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed on July 8, 2026, with respect to the use of relative terms have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments cancelling claim 14. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed on July 8, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,920,145 to Wu et al.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed on July 8, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,920,145 to Wu et al.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed on July 8, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,920,145 to Wu et al.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over publication Low-Voltage, High Speed Inkjet-Printed Flexible Complementary Polymer Electronic Circuits by Baeg et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,920,145 to Wu et al.
Baeg et al. clearly teaches Low-Voltage, High Speed Inkjet-Printed Flexible Complementary Polymer Electronic Circuits, comprising:
at least one electronic system (see Figures 1, 4(a), 5(c), and 5(d)), integrated onto the surface or in the volume of a thermoplastic matrix (see Figures 4(b) and 4(e)) and at least one reinforcing material,
said electronic system comprising:
at least one piezoelectric transducer (see Figure 1); and
an electrical signal transmission means (see Figure 1);
said piezoelectric transducer comprising a piezoelectric polymer essentially consisting of repeating units derived from vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and vinylidene trifluoride (TrFE), the molar proportion of the unit derived from TrFE being from 15% to 50% relative to the total number of moles of the units derived from VDF and TrFE (see Abstract).
However, it fails to disclose a thermoplastic composite encasing said thermoplastic matrix.
Wu et al. discloses a Method and Structure for Embedding Piezoelectric Transducers in Thermoplastic Composites, comprising:
a thermoplastic composite encasing a piezoelectric transducer in a thermoplastic matrix.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the thermoplastic composite enclosure disclosed by Wu et al. on the electronic system disclosed by Baeg et al. for the purpose of “embedding piezoelectric ceramic transducers in thermoplastic composites which are much tougher and as strong and stiff as thermoset composite materials, but have a higher consolidation temperature” (see column 1, lines 9-15).
With regards to claim 2, Baeg et al. discloses:
said thermoplastic matrix being a (meth)acrylic matrix (see Abstract, PMMA).
With regards to claim 3, Baeg et al. discloses:
said piezoelectric polymer having a molar proportion of TrFE-based repeating units of from 16% to 35% (see paragraph 2.1, 30%) relative to the total number of moles of units derived from VDF and TrFE.
With regards to claim 4, Baeg et al. discloses:
the Curie temperature of the piezoelectric polymer is strictly greater than 80°C (see Abstract, PMMA compound).
With regards to claim 5, Baeg et al. discloses:
said at least one transducer is a fiber (“carbon nanotubes”) comprising:
an inner conductive core constituting a first electrode (see Figures 4(c) – 4(e));
an intermediate coating comprising said at least one piezoelectric polymer adhering to said conductive core (see Figures 4(c) – 4(e)); and
an outer conductive coating constituting a second electrode (see Figures 4(c) – 4(e)).
With regards to claim 6, Baeg et al. discloses:
said at least one transducer and/or the electrical signal transmission means are obtained via electronic printing methods on a substrate (see paragraph 2.1.).
With regards to claim 7, Baeg et al. discloses:
said transducer comprises a film (11) of piezoelectric polymer.
With regards to claim 9, Baeg et al. discloses:
a plurality of piezoelectric transducers forming an array (200, 300).
With regards to claim 10, Baeg et al. discloses:
said electronic system is integrated into the thermoplastic matrix via an operating process whose temperature does not exceed the Curie temperature of the piezoelectric polymer (see paragraph 2.1.).
With regards to claim 11, Baeg et al. discloses:
the reinforcing material is a material consisting of long or continuous fibers, notably glass fibers or carbon fibers (see Figure 1).
With regards to claim 12, Baeg et al. discloses:
said electronic system being integrated into the thermoplastic matrix via an in-situ polymerization process (see paragraph 2.1.).
With regards to claim 15, Baeg et al. discloses:
a method of using (see Figure 1) an electronic system for monitoring the progress of a process (Process Monitoring) for integrating said electronic system into a thermoplastic matrix, the electronic system and the thermoplastic matrix being intended to form a composite article as described in paragraph 4 above.
With regards to claim 16, Baeg et al. discloses:
a method of using (see Figure 1) the composite article as described in paragraph 4 above, for measuring and/or monitoring (“sensors”; see “Introduction” and “Results and discussion”) properties of said article, notably for Structural Health Monitoring.
With regards to claim 17, Wu et al. discloses:
the at least one reinforcing material being a filler of the thermoplastic composite.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low-Voltage, High Speed Inkjet-Printed Flexible Complementary Polymer Electronic Circuits from Baeg et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,920,145 to Wu et al. as applied to claims 1-7, 9-12, and 15-17 above, further in view of Nanowire-Based Flexible P(VDF-TrFE) Nanogenerator for Simultaneously Harvesting Mechanical and Thermal Energies to Xiaoliang Chen et al.
Baeg et al. in view of Wu et al. clearly teaches Low-Voltage, High Speed Inkjet-Printed Flexible Complementary Polymer Electronic Circuits as described in paragraph 7 above.
However, it fails to disclose the piezoelectric polymer has a thickness of from 1 micron to 50 microns.
Xiaoliang Chen et al. discloses a Nanowire-Based Flexible P(VDF-TrFE) Nanogenerator, comprising:
a piezoelectric polymer having a thickness of from 1 micron to 50 microns (see discussion of Figures 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the Nanowire-Based Flexible P(VDF-TrFE) Nanogenerator disclosed by Xiaoliang Chen et al. on the circuits disclosed by Baeg et al. in view of Wu et al., for the purpose of improving the operational performance of the circuit.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low-Voltage, High Speed Inkjet-Printed Flexible Complementary Polymer Electronic Circuits from Baeg et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,920,145 to Wu et al. as applied to claims 1-7, 9-12, and 15-17 above, further in view of common knowledge in the art.
Baeg et al. in view of Wu et al. clearly teaches Low-Voltage, High Speed Inkjet-Printed Flexible Complementary Polymer Electronic Circuits as described in paragraph 7 above.
However, it fails to disclose the article being chosen from a multilayer composite structure for hydrogen distribution or storage, a structure for a wind turbine blade, a rebar for concrete, or a battery pack.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to choose a multilayer composite structure for hydrogen distribution or storage, a structure for a wind turbine blade, a rebar for concrete, or a battery pack for the Low-Voltage, High Speed Inkjet-Printed Flexible Complementary Polymer Electronic Circuits disclosed by Baeg et al. in view of Wu et al., for the purpose of providing the circuit with a strong composite structure operating in an environment from which strong tension and compression forces are present and are utilized for energy harvesting with piezoelectric devices.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground 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 PEDRO J CUEVAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2021. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/PEDRO J CUEVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights