DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on August 24, 2023. Claims 1-4, 7-11, 16-17, 20-23, 26, and 71-74 are pending. Claims 5-6, 12-15, 18-19, 24-25, 27-70 and 75-87 is/are canceled. Claims 71-74 is/are withdrawn. A first action on the merits of claims 1-4, 7-11, 16-17, 20-23 and 26 is as follows.
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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 is a duplicate of claim 4.
Claim 20 is a duplicate of claim 7.
Claim 21 is a duplicate of claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 16-17, 21-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang et al. (hereinafter ‘Fang’, NPL: Solution-Processed Submicron Free-Standing, Conformal, Transparent, Breathable Epidermal Electrodes, see IDS).
In regards to independent claim 1 and claim 3 & 10-11, Fang discloses an electrode (free-standing PEDOT:PSS/AgNW/PEDOT:PSS (PAP) hybrid electrode as shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
a first layer comprising a conductive polymer (the electrode comprises two layers of conductive polymer PEDOT:PSS as labeled in Fig. 1, the lower layer disposed above glass as shown in Fig. 1a, upper left, thus meeting claim 3);
a second layer positioned above the first layer and comprising an inorganic material that forms a conductive network on the first layer (gold nanowires AgNWs are disposed above the lower layer of PEDOT:PSS as shown in Fig. 1a, lower left, thus meeting claims 10-11); and
a third layer positioned above the second layer and comprising a conductive polymer selected from the group consisting of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT), poly(pyrrole)s (PYY), polyanilines (PANI), and combination thereof (the capped PEDOT:PSS disposed above the welded AgNWs as shown in Fig. 1a, lower right).
In regards to claim 2, Fang further discloses wherein the electrode is encapsulated with an adhesive (the upper layer of PEDOT:PSS encapsulates and bonds to the AgNW conductive layer which inherently requires an adhesive as shown in Fig. 1a, lower right; pg. 23690, col. 2, para.1: “the coating of the top PEDOT:PSS layer was designed to form an encapsulated structure for a well-bonded interface between AgNWs and PEDOT:PSS” ).
In regards to claim 4 and 16, Fang further discloses wherein the conductive polymer further comprises a dopant (pg. 23691, col. 1, para. 1: “The annealing of the PAP hybrid film and the addition of ethylene glycol (EG) have been proven to be important in preventing it from being disposed in the water again with reliable stability”; note that the addition of ethylene glycol is an act of doping the conductive polymer to alter the properties of the PEDOT:PSS).
In regards to claims 8 and 21, Fang further discloses the conductive polymer is in a form of nanofibrils (the PEDOT:PSS structure forms a nanovoid structure as the added EG allows the PEDOT to crystalize and unfold macromolecules to create a PEDOT network as shown in Figs. 1a & 1b).
In regards to claim 9, Fang further discloses the inorganic material is in a form selected from the group consisting of patterns, arrays, nanoparticles, nanofibers, nanowires, nanomeshes, and combinations thereof (gold nanowires are arranged to form a nanomesh as shown in Fig. 1a and 1b; pg. 23689, col. 1, para. 2: “gold nanowire (NW) nanomesh”).
In regards to claim 17, Fang further discloses wherein the electrode is in a form of a composite (the electrode is a composite formed from a conductive network layer of AgNW sandwiched between two layers of conductive polymer as shown in Figs. 1a & 1b).
In regard to claims 22 and 23, Fang further discloses wherein the third layer encapsulates and coats the inorganic component (the upper layer of PEDOT:PSS encapsulates and bonds to the AgNW conductive layer which inherently requires an adhesive as shown in Fig. 1a, lower right; pg. 23690, col. 2, para.1: “the coating of the top EDOT:PSS layer was designed to form an encapsulated structure for a well-bonded interface between AgNWs and PEDOT:PSS”).
In regards to claim 26, Fang further discloses wherein the electrode is at least one of wearable or implantable (Fig. 4 illustrates PAP hybrid electrode worn on the skin).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (hereinafter ‘Park’, U.S. PGPub. No. 2021/0244304).
In regard to claims 7 and 20, Fang discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 and discussed above.
However, Fang does not disclose the dopant is selected from the group consisting of 2-[4-(2,4,4-trimethylpentan-2-yl)phenoxyl]ethanol, D-sorbitol, dimethyl sulfoxide, ionic liquids, and combinations thereof.
Park teaches an electrode (electrode site 120 in Fig. 2) formed from (metal nanowire layer 121 as shown in Fig. 3) and a conductive polymer (122 in Fig. 3). The conductive polymer is selected from the group consisting of poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT), poly (styrenesulfonate)(PSS), poly (3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT), poly (3-octylthiophene) (P3OT), poly (p-phenylene vinylene) (PPV), poly (9,9-dioctylfluorene), poly (2-methoxy-5-(2′-ethyl-hexyloxy)-1,4-phenylene vinylene) (MEH-PPV), poly (2-methoxy-5-(3′,7′-dimethyloctyloxy)-1,4-phenylenevinylene) (MDMO-PPV), derivatives thereof, and mixtures thereof ([0063]) which includes the same PEDOT:PSS material as Fang. Furthermore, Park teaches that the conductive polymer is doped with a first dopant selected from the group consisting of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), ethylene glycol (EG), sorbitol and mixtures thereof ([0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conductive polymer of Fang and dope the conductive polymer with dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), sorbitol or other dopants known in the art other than ethylene glycol (EG) as taught by Park, to provide a high conductivity of the PEDOT:PSS ([0064]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHWA KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1265. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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.
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794 12/4/2025