DETAILED ACTION
Table of Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
II. Drawings 3
III. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 4
A. Claims 1, 4-8, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the article by Hamedi, et al. “Fiber-Embedded Electrolyte-Gated Field-Effect Transistors for e-Textiles” in Advanced Materials, 2009, 21, pp. 573-577 (“Hamedi”), as evidenced by US 2010/0163283 (“Hamedi-283”) only for claim 5. 4
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 8
A. Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamedi in view of Hamedi-283. 8
B. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamedi in view of US 2014/0131685 (“Im”). 10
C. Claims 3, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamedi in view of US 2016/0276056 (“Stolyarov”). 10
V. Allowable Subject Matter 12
VI. Pertinent Prior Art 14
Conclusion 14
[The rest of this page is intentionally left blank.]
I. 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 .
II. Drawings
(1) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the “conducting core 28” (specification: p. 7, lines 12-15, or ¶ 53 of US 2024/0431123, which is the pre-grant publication of the instant application).
(2) Fig. 5 is objected to because the line extending from reference character 26 points to the stencil interior 34 rather than to a representative “gap segment 26” of the textile core 18.
(3) Fig. 9 is objected to because the line extending from reference character 44 points to the textile core 18 rather than to the “recess 44” of the stencil 32. (See by comparison, each of Figs. 10, 11, and 12.)
(4) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “26” has been used to designate both a “gap segment 26” in e.g., Figs. 1-5 (specification, e.g. p. 6, lines 14-15, or e.g. ¶ 48 of US 2024/0431123) and “two exposed segments” in the explanation directed to Fig. 14, which nonetheless does not show reference character 26 (specification p. 10, lines 23-26, or ¶ 72 of US 2024/0431123).
(5) Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
III. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
A. Claims 1, 4-8, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the article by Hamedi, et al. “Fiber-Embedded Electrolyte-Gated Field-Effect Transistors for e-Textiles” in Advanced Materials, 2009, 21, pp. 573-577 (“Hamedi”), as evidenced by US 2010/0163283 (“Hamedi-283”) only for claim 5.
With regard to claim 1, Hamedi discloses,
1. A manufacture comprising
[1a] a thread-based transistor [“a fiber-based organic electrolyte-gated thin-film transistor (TFT) based on poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT) and imidazolium ionic liquids” (p. 573, 2nd ¶; Fig. 1(a) on p. 574)], said thread-based transistor comprising
[1b] a channel thread [“The source-drain gaps, which have to be on the micrometer scale along the fiber, are created by weaving a fiber mesh, where the upper fibers are used as shadow masks for patterning the lower layer of fibers. A gold layer 100 nm thick is subsequently evaporated through these masks onto the lower fibers, creating a number of source and drain contacts, with a channel distance of 100 μm along each fiber, with the gap corresponding to the diameter of the shadow mask fibers.” (p. 573, 3rd ¶)],
[1c] a gate wire [“G” in Fig. 1(a); “Pure gold wires (bond-wires) are then sewn perpendicularly to the P3HT fibers to form junctions, each positioned above the microgaps, acting as gate contacts.” (p. 574, left col.)], and
[1d] an ion gel [“Finally a drop of a solid polymeric ionic-liquid (IL) electrolyte is placed at the junctions, to create fiber OTFTs … The solid IL electrolyte is a mixture of 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonimide) ([bmim][Tf2N]) and a corresponding polymer IL poly(1-vinyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonimide) (poly[ViEtIm][Tf2N], more information was published elsewhere)” (p. 574, left col.); Fig. 1(c)],
[2] wherein said channel thread comprises a textile core [“The softness of gold and the good adhesion between gold and the fiber materials, such as nylon, result in coated fibers that tolerate the mechanical stresses induced by being rolled on reels and used in simple hand weaving.” (p. 573, 3rd ¶)] that comprises a source segment [“S” in Fig. 1(a)], a drain segment [“D” in Fig. 1(a)], and a gap segment [“SD gap” “S-D gap” in Figs. 1(a), 1(c); “sourced-drain gaps” (supra)] that is between said source segment S and said drain segment D,
[3] wherein said source segment S and said drain segment D are coated by a conductive coating [i.e. “gold layer 100 nm thick is subsequently evaporated through these masks onto the lower fibers, creating a number of source and drain contacts” (supra)],
[4] wherein said gap segment [SD gap] is coated by a semiconducting material [“Next, thin films of purified regioregular P3HT are formed around the gold-coated fibers, by pulling these out of a solution (4mg ml-1 in chloroform) at a relatively constant speed, to allow for the formation of continuous thin films (~100 nm) on the entire fiber.” (sentence bridging pp. 573-574)], and
[5] wherein said ion gel provides electrical coupling between said gap segment and said gate wire [“The use of an electrolyte as gate insulator removes the necessity for a perfect alignment of the gate fiber electrode relative to the channel, and allows a wider range of distances between the gate and the channel, without altering significantly the electrical characteristics of the transistors.” (p. 574, sentence bridging left and right cols.].
With regard to features [1d] and [5] of claim 1, although the term “ion gel” is not used, it is held, absent evidence to the contrary, that the “solid polymeric ionic-liquid (IL) electrolyte” (supra) is an ion gel within the meaning of the Instant Application. Evidence is that the disclosed electrolyte serves the identical function as in the Instant Application. As such, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove the contrary. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
With regard to claim 4, Hamedi further discloses,
4. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said gate wire G comprises a gold wire [supra].
Claim 5 reads,
5. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said thread-based transistor is an elastic transistor.
It is held, absent evidence to the contrary, that the OTFT of Hamedi is elastic, as evidenced by Hamedi-283. In this regard, Hamedi-283 teaches the same OTFTs as in Hamedi (Hamedi-283: ¶¶ 28-38, 57, 76-90; Fig. 5). Hamedi-283 explains that the point of e-textiles is that they be elastic, flexible, stretchable and foldable, particularly enabled by the elasticity of organic conducting polymers used as the semiconductor and the electrolyte used as the gate insulator, stating in these regards,
[0003] … Properties of conjugated/conducting polymers (CPs), as compared to their inorganic counterparts, include high elasticity, mechanical flexibility, and an unlimited number of chemical synthesis and processing possibilities which allows for a natural integration of CPs into fabrics. …
[0011] Furthermore fibre electronics components should comprise material that are soft and can tolerate the bending and stretching of textiles, without loosing function. This will not be compatible with the requirements of a well defined insulator [i.e. other than the polymer electrolyte].
[0013] Organic conductive materials are interesting candidates as materials for fibre electronics. Some of the advantages of organic electronics materials, and especially conjugated/conducting polymers (CPs) as compared to their inorganic counterparts, include high elasticity, mechanical flexibility, and an unlimited number of chemical synthesis and processing possibilities which allows for a natural integration of CPs into fabrics. By integrating organic electronic materials into or onto monofilament, it is possible to directly create a fabric from the active monofilaments.
[0063] With the word electrolyte we mean any material that is capable of conducting ions or ionic species, including liquids containing salts, and solid polymer electrolytes that can conduct ions, or ionic liquids.
[0069] Traditional weaving techniques combined with some new developed tools can be used as the main route of production. This would allow effective large-scale production of devices and also ensure that useful textile properties like flexibility, stretchability and porosity are maintained. …
[0072] Knitting is performed using one fibre (yarn) which is worked into a line of loops, example FIG. 8 (801) that are build on row wise into a textile structure. Because of this curled structure of each row, knitted textiles are highly stretchable compared to a weaved textiles, which mainly consists of straight fibres. Knitting is commonly performed in special machines and can hence be a very effective production technique.
Large Scale Integration of Transistors
[0094] The fabrication of the WECT and the EFET is insensitive to vertical displacement between fibres, due to the described interfacial operation of the device. Furthermore WECTs creation is also insensitive to horizontal displacement along fibres because source and drain contacts consist of the same material as the channel and the gate. The transistors are also quite insensitive to the shape or amount of the electrolyte.
[0095] Transistors can therefore be easily constructed across any micro fibre junction in a 3 dimensional weave using self assembly of electrolyte drops, see for example FIG. 6, where 601 represents one of many components at junctions in a weace. The fabrication of fibre transistors eliminates the need for lithography patterning steps, which are only 2 dimensional and hardly compatible or cost efficient for e-textiles. Furthermore the insensitivity of the transistor function together with the insensitivity of organic electro active materials such as polymers to bending and stretching, makes these transistors operational even if the fabric is under mechanical bending or stretching.
(Hamedi-283; emphasis added)
Based on the foregoing evidence from Hamedi-283, it is held, absent evidence to the contrary, that the OTFT disclosed in Hamedi is elastic. As such, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove the contrary. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
With regard to claims 6-8 and 14 Hamedi further discloses,
6. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said semiconducting material comprises a semiconducting polymer [P3HT, Fig. 1(a)].
7. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said semiconducting material comprises poly(3-hexylthiophene) [P3HT, Fig. 1(a)].
8. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said semiconducting material comprises carbon nanotubes [“In future development, functional microfibers, such as heterogeneous carbon-black[20] and carbon-nanotube fibers, …” (p. 576, penultimate ¶)].
14. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said gap segment [SD gap] has an average length of under one millimeter [“a channel distance of 100 μm along each fiber” (supra)].
IV. 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 of this title, 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.
A. Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamedi in view of Hamedi-283.
Claim 11 reads,
11. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said semiconducting material comprises poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate.
The prior art of Hamedi, as explained above, discloses each of the features of claim 1.
The example OTFT in Fig. 1(a) does not use poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS) as the semiconductor material.
Hamedi-283 teaches that PEDOT:PSS can be used as the semiconductor material for the channel of the OTFT (Hamedi-283: ¶¶ 78-80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use PEDOT:PSS as the semiconductor material in the OTFT of Hamedi because the same inventor explains that PEDOT:PSS is suitable for the identical purpose of forming a semiconductor channel in a fiber-based OTFT. As such the selection of PEDOT:PSS amounts to obvious material choice. (See MPEP 2144.07.)
Claim 15 reads,
15. The manufacture of claim 1, further comprising clothing that comprises wearable electronic circuitry incorporated therein, wherein said transistor is a constituent of said wearable electronic circuitry.
While Hamedi clearly incorporates the OTFT into fabric (Hamedi: Fig. 1(b)), it is not clear that the fabric is forming into clothing.
Nonetheless, Hamedi explains that one point of e-textiles is to make clothing, stating in this regard, “Some e-textile manufacturing schemes comprise the integration of conventional off-the-shelf electronic components by attaching these directly onto clothes.”
Hamedi-283 teaches that the fiber-based OTFTs are incorporated into clothes (Hamedi: ¶ 60; Fig. 8 and ¶¶ 3, 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the OTFTs of Fig. 1(b) of Hamedi into clothes because Hamedi and Hamedi-283 suggest that this is one point of e-textiles.
B. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamedi in view of US 2014/0131685 (“Im”).
Claim 2 reads,
2. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said textile core comprises linen.
The prior art of Hamedi, as explained above, discloses each of the features of claim 1.
The example OTFT in Fig. 1(a) of Hamedi does not use linen as the textile core.
Im, like Hamedi, teaches OTFTs on fibers for e-textiles (Im: title; abstract; ¶¶ 3, 5, 10, 29) having an organic semiconductor polymer as the channel material (Im: ¶ 31). Also like Hamedi, Im teaches that the fiber may be nylon (Im: ¶ 38). Im further teaches that the fiber may be linen (id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use linen as the fiber because it would be the substitution of one known fiber material, i.e. nylon, for another, i.e. linen, taught by Im to be suitable for the same purpose of making stretchable OTFTs on fibers. As such the selection of linen amounts to obvious material choice. (See MPEP 2144.07.)
C. Claims 3, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamedi in view of US 2016/0276056 (“Stolyarov”).
3. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said conductive coating comprises graphite.
9. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said semiconducting material comprises graphene.
10. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said semiconducting material comprises reduced graphene-oxide.
12. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said semiconducting material comprises molybdenum disulfide.
13. The manufacture of claim 1, wherein said semiconducting material comprises tungsten selenide.
The prior art of Hamedi, as explained above, discloses each of the features of claim 1.
The example OTFT in Fig. 1(a) of Hamedi does not use any of the claimed materials for the conductive coating used to form the source and drain contacts or the semiconductor material used to form the channel.
Stolyarov is drawn to dispersions of graphene-like materials used as electrically-conductive inks and coatings (Stolyarov: abstract) that can be used to coat or form patterns on, e.g. fabric (Stolyarov: ¶¶ 157-158), to make them more conductive for use in, e.g. “printed electronic circuitry, flexible circuits, membrane switches,” (Stolyarov: ¶ 166). Among the materials are graphite, graphene, and reduced graphene oxide (Stolyarov: abstract, ¶¶ 50, 56, 129, 131, 139, 147), molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) and tungsten selenide (WSe2) (Stolyarov: ¶¶ 50, 151).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use graphite as the conductive material to form the source and drain contacts in the OTFT in Hamedi and to use any of graphene, reduced graphene oxide, molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) and tungsten selenide (WSe2) as the semiconductor channel material because it would be the substitution of one known material for other known material suitable for the same purpose of making conducting or semiconducting patterns on fabric for use in printed electronic circuitry, flexible circuits, membrane switches, as taught in Stolyarov. As such the selection of any of these materials amounts to obvious material choice. (See MPEP 2144.07.)
V. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-29 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16 reads,
16. A method comprising manufacturing
[1a] a thread-based transistor that comprises
[1b] a channel thread having a source segment, a drain segment, and a gap segment between said source and drain segments,
[2a] wherein manufacturing said thread-based transistor comprises
[2b] forming said channel thread by passing a textile core through a stencil set that comprises a stencil such that a portion of said textile core that is to become said gap segment is inside said stencil and portions of said textile core that are to become said source and drain segments are outside any stencil,
[2c] applying a conductive coating onto said portions of said textile core that are outside any stencil, thereby forming said source and drain segments [“The source-drain gaps, which have to be on the micrometer scale along the fiber, are created by weaving a fiber mesh, where the upper fibers are used as shadow masks for patterning the lower layer of fibers. A gold layer 100 nm thick is subsequently evaporated through these masks onto the lower fibers, creating a number of source and drain contacts, with a channel distance of 100 μm along each fiber, with the gap corresponding to the diameter of the shadow mask fibers.” (p. 573, 3rd ¶)], and
[2d] removing said stencil set, thereby exposing said gap segment.
With regard to claim 16, as explained above, Hamedi discloses features [1a] and [1b] of claim 16. With regard to features [2a]-[2d] of claim 16, Hamedi further discloses,
[2a] wherein manufacturing said thread-based transistor comprises
[2b] forming said channel thread by …[covering]… a textile core …[with a shadow mask]… such that a portion of said textile core [i.e. nylon fiber] that is to become said gap segment [SD gap] is …[covered by the shadow mask]… and portions of said textile core that are to become said source S and drain D segments are …[exposed by the shadow mask] …,
[2c] applying a conductive coating [e.g. gold (supra)] onto said portions of said textile core that are …[exposed by the shadow mask] …, thereby forming said source S and drain D segments, and
[2d] removing said …[shadow mask]…, thereby exposing said gap segment [SD gap].
Thus, Hamedi does not disclose the process limitations of feature [2b], particularly
passing a textile core through a stencil set that comprises a stencil such that a portion of said textile core that is to become said gap segment is inside said stencil and portions of said textile core that are to become said source and drain segments are outside any stencil
The closest prior art reference as to the process steps in features [2a]-[2d] may be considered to be US 3,333,278 (“Hawkins”). Hawkins teaches a process of selectively masking and selectively exposing individual fibers using a “fixture 32” (Fig. 9) which includes “parallel masking clamp portions 33” that mask portions of the fibers 11 that are not to be treated, while leaving other portions exposed, as shown in Fig. 9 (Hawkins: col. 4, lines 51-63). However, given the scale of the source-drain gap in Hamedi, it is not clear that a fixture, such as the one in Hawkins would function to produce source and drain contacts as well as the source-drain gap on the dimensions required in Hawkins.
As such, The prior art does not reasonably teach or suggest—in the context of the claims—the process limitations of feature [2b] of claim 16, above.
Claims 17-29 are allowable at least for including the same allowable limitations by depending from claim 16 either directly or indirectly.
VI. Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang, et al., “Recent progress of fiber‑based transistors: materials, structures and applications”, Frontiers of Optoelectronics, 29 March 2022: particularly, section entitled “3.2 Fiber-based logic circuits”
Qing, et al., “Wearable Fiber-Based Organic Electrochemical Transistors as a Platform for Highly Sensitive Dopamine Monitoring” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2019, 11, pp. 13105−13113
Lee and Subramanian, “Weave Patterned Organic Transistors on Fiber for E-Textiles” IEEE Transactions On Electron Devices, Vol. 52, No. 2, February 2005, pp. 269-275
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK KIELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 10:00 AM-7:00 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
Signed,
/ERIK KIELIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814