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 § 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.
Claims 12-17 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (Highly sensitive, reliable and flexible piezoresistive pressure sensors featuring polyurethane sponge coated with MXene sheets, J. of Colloid and Interface Science, 542 (2019), pp. 54-62).
Regarding claims 12-14 and 24
Li discloses a pressure sensor comprising a polyurethane sponge (i.e., substrate) dip coated in Ti3C2Tx Mxene sheets (i.e., flakes) (abstract).
Li discloses that the polyurethane sponge has a plurality microchannels formed on the exterior surface of the substrate (i.e., micropores) (see Figure 3).
Li discloses that the neat polyurethane sponge is fabricated by two dip coatings (i.e. a multiplicity of at least two film layers will be formed) (3.2 Pressure-sensing mechanisms, first paragraph), which produce Mxene film layers in each of the plurality of microchannels.
Li discloses that the Tx stands for the surface functions groups OH, O and F (Introduction, third paragraph).
Regarding claims 15-16
The electrical resistance and conductivity with a change in pressure or shape is a property of the composition, and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 17
Li discloses that the PU substrate coated with the Mxene film layers is about 2 cm, or 20 mm (Figure 3(a)).
Regarding claim 19
Li discloses that the Mxene sheets have an average thickness of 1.8 nm and with large lateral sizes up to several microns (3.1. Structural and morphological characteristics, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 20
Based on the methods used in Li, and the fact that the Mxene layers are sheets, they would be expected to stack face-to-face and edge-to-edge, and not face-to-edge. Further, this is expected to have the layers parallelly deposited and anisotropically aligned.
Regarding claims 21 and 25-26
The micropores of Li read on microchannels, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of what a microchannel is. Further, adjacent micropores could be also described as curved parallel microchannels.
Regarding claim 22
When looking at Figure 3€ we can see 3 micropores that are connected and equally spaced apart.
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, 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Highly sensitive, reliable and flexible piezoresistive pressure sensors featuring polyurethane sponge coated with Mxene sheets, J. of Colloid and Interface Science, 542 (2019, pp. 54-62), as applied to claims 12-17 and 19 above, in view of Shi et al. (CN-111592626-A).
Regarding claim 18
Although Li does not disclose the claimed substrate material, Li does disclose the other limitations of the claim. However, Shi discloses that Mxenes can be added to polyethylene glycol diacrylate as a substrate (abstract). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Li by using polyethylene glycol diacrylate as the polymer substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Shi.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants argue that Li does not teach or suggest microchannels but instead teaches a porous structure. This is not persuasive as the porous structure is a plurality of microchannels when given the broadest reasonable definition of microchannel.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights