DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 7, 9, and 10, as well as claims 8 and 11-18 based on their dependencies to the former claims, 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.
5. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the conductive coating layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which Claim 7 depends, recites “a conductive layer”. There is no mention of a ‘coating layer’ in Claim 1. Claim 2 does recite that “the conductive layer is coated”, but there is no limitation in any claim about a “coated layer”, rendering the claim indefinite. Proper correction is required.
6. Claims 9 and 10 recite the same limitation of “the conductive coating layer” as recited in Claim 7. Therefore, they are also rendered indefinite for the same reasons above. Proper correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovaniemi U.S. 2016/0166438 (herein referred to as “Rovaniemi”), and in view of Chin U.S. 2023/0040653 (herein referred to as “Chin”) and Non-Patent Literature Bioinspired transparent and antibacterial electronic skin for sensitive tactile sensing by Zhu (herein referred to as “Zhu”).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Rovaniemi teaches a biomimetic, nanofiber-based and directional moisture-wicking wearable electronic fabric having an asymmetric heterostructure (Figs. 1-4C), comprising:
a. a hydrophobic nanofiber layer (Fig. 4A, ref num 4; para 0118);
b. a superhydrophilic nanofiber layer (Fig. 4A, ref num 3; para 0117); and
c. a conductive layer (Fig. 4A, ref num 5; para 0127, “sensor is electrically conductive”);
d. wherein the conductive layer is located between the hydrophobic nanofiber layer and the superhydrophilic nanofiber layer (see Fig. 4A, ref num 5 is between ref nums 3 and 4), forming a multilayer composite structure to form a conductive and electronic sensing function and generate a surface energy gradient and a push-pull effect to guide moisture unidirectionally from a skin surface to an ambient atmosphere (para 0063, 0070; guides to absorbent area, ref num 2);
Rovaniemi fails to teach (e) wherein the biomimetic, nanofiber-based and directional moisture-wicking electronic fabric has a pressure sensing sensitivity of 75 to 550 kPa-1 in a pressure range from 0 to 20 kPa, response and recovery time of 28.4 ms and 39.1 ms, and a water vapor transfer rate between 12-18 kg·m-2·d-1 at 25 ℃.
Chin teaches a fabric comprising a water vapor transfer rate between 12-18 kg·m-2·d-1 at 25 ℃ (para 0014; para 0017, “a protective clothing material comprised a fibrous material… The breathability or water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) greater than or equal to about 10,000 gram/m.sup.2/day and less than or equal to about 100,000 gram/m.sup.2/day).
Zhu teaches a fabric having a pressure sensing sensitivity of 71.52 mVkPa-1 in a pressure range from 0 to 75 kPa (highlights and abstract), with a response time of around 25 ms (see section 3.4, Practical applications and tactile mapping of the electronic skin).
The fabrics outlined in these references provide protective properties, as well as enhancing sensing capabilities (see Chin, para 0009 and NPL, introduction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the fabric with the desired properties, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
10. Regarding Claim 2, Rovaniemi teaches the conductive layer is coated on a side either of the hydrophobic nanofiber layer or the superhydrophilic nanofiber layer (see Fig. 4A, ref num 5 is coated on the side of ref num 4; para 0129, ‘Those sensors may be placed on or under the backing layer 4”).
11. Regarding Claim 19, Rovaniemi as modified teaches a method of fabricating the biomimetic, nanofiber-based and directional moisture-wicking wearable electronic fabric of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), wherein the hydrophobic nanofiber layer is configured to contact human skin (para 0135, “These sections of the backing layer 4 with the adhesive film 21 are intended to be attached to a patient's skin”).
12. Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovaniemi, Chin, and Zhu, and further in view of Yang Non-Patent Literature, Breathable Electronic Skins for Daily Physiological Signal Monitoring by Yang (herein referred to as “Yang”) and Poudineh U.S. 2023/0113717 (herein referred to as “Poudineh”).
13. Regarding Claims 3-7, Rovaniemi teaches the hydrophobic nanofiber layer comprises one or more high molecular weight hydrophobic (para 0118, “the backing layer 4 serves as a clothing protection and is made of a green breathable, hydrophobic non-woven fabric based on polypropylene”) and the superhydrophilic nanofiber layer comprises one or more high molecular weight hydrophilic polymer (para 0117, “The facing layer 3 in this particular embodiment is made of a white hydrophilic non-woven fabric consisting of polypropylene fibers”).
Rovaniemi fails to teach the hydrophobic nanofiber layer and the superhydrophilic nanofiber layer are electrospun nanofiber layers (claim 3); the conductive layer is an electrosprayed conductive layer (claim 4); the polymers are selected from polyvinylidene difluoride, copolymers of polyvinylidene difluoride, polyurethane, or polycaprolactone (claim 5); the polymer is selected from polyacrylonitrile, polyvinyl alcohol, nylon or polyethylene glycol (claim 6); the conductive coating layer comprises: an ultrafine and conductive functional material selected from one or more graphene oxide, titanium carbide, carbon nanotube, carbon black or acetylene black; and a metal salt selected from lithium chloride or sodium chloride (claim 7).
Regarding Claims 3-7, Yang teaches a nanofiber-based wearable electronic fabric of analogous art (abstract), wherein the fabric comprises a hydrophobic nanofiber layer, a conductive layer, and a superhydrophilic nanofiber layer (Section 2.1 – ‘Breathable ECG e-Skin Electrodes’: “This ECG e-skin consisted of a hydrophilic outer layer, a transport layer, and a hydrophobic inner layer with gradients of both hydrophilicity and pore size (Fig. 1a). The multiwalled carbon nanotubes were sprayed between the inner layer and the transport layer as a conductive layer to ensure that the e-skin had good conductance to ECG signals”). The hydrophobic nanofiber layer and the superhydrophilic nanofiber layer are electrospun (Section 2.1, “while its melt-spun fibers had good flexibility”; also see sections 2.3 and 2.4), while the conductive layer is electrosprayed (Section 2.1, “The multiwalled carbon nanotubes were sprayed between the inner layer and the transport layer as a conductive layer to ensure that the e-skin had good conductance to ECG signals”). The conductive layer is formed of an ultrafine and conductive function material, such as carbon nanotubes (see Section 2.1, “The multiwalled carbon nanotubes were sprayed between the inner layer and the transport layer as a conductive layer to ensure that the e-skin had good conductance to ECG signals”), while the hydrophobic layer comprises polyurethane and the superhydrophilic layer comprises nylong (Section 2.2, “proposed a textile-based EOG e-skin that was directly weaved into a headband [19, 37]. The conductive textiles were fabricated from graphene-coated commercial fabrics, which were low-cost, durable, and scalable such as nylon”; Section 2.3, “the designed multilayer e-skin consisted of superhydrophilic hydrolyzed-polyacrylonitrile (HPAN), polyurethane (PU), and silver nanowires (AgNWs)”). It has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination”- MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits or suitability of the disclosed materials (e.g. cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rovaniemi to incorporate the teachings of Yang and have the various layers include the listed materials above, since these materials offer the benefits of cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc., as stated above.
While Rovaniemi as modified by Yang fails to teach the conductive layer having a metal salt selected from lithium chloride or sodium chloride, Poudineh teaches a conductive material comprising a metal salt, such as sodium chloride (para 0121) to enhance the sensing properties of the material (para 0101). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Rovaniemi to incorporate the teachings of Poudineh and have the various layers include the listed materials above, since these materials offer the benefits of cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc., as stated above.
14. Regarding Claim 8, Rovaniemi fails to teach the size of the ultrafine and conductive functional material is 0.1 to 10 micrometers.
Yang teaches the size of the ultrafine and conductive functional material is around 0.5 micrometers (Section 2.4, “EEG e-skin whose electrode–skin contact impedance is on par with the commercial Ag/AgCl gel electrode [13] (Fig. 2f). With a sub-micrometer thickness (~ 463 nm)…”). This falls within the claimed range (0.1-10 micrometers is between 100-10,000 nm). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the size of the conductive functional material be within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
15. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovaniemi and in view of Chin, Zhu, Yang, and Young U.S. 2009/0054860 (herein referred to as “Young”).
16. Regarding Claim 9, Rovaniemi as modified teaches a method of fabricating the biomimetic, nanofiber-based and directional moisture-wicking wearable electronic fabric of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), comprising: forming either one of the hydrophobic nanofiber layer (Fig. 4A, ref num 4; para 0118) and the super-hydrophilic layer (Fig. 4A, ref num 3; para 0117); forming the conductive coating layer on a side of the hydrophobic or the superhydrophilic layer (see Fig. 4A, ref num 5 is between ref nums 3 and 4); forming the other one of the hydrophobic nanofiber layer and the super-hydrophilic layer on the conductive coating layer to form the multilayer composite structure with the conductive coating layer as the middle layer (see Fig. 4A, ref num 5 is between ref nums 3 and 4).
Rovaniemi fails to teach forming either one of the hydrophobic nanofiber layer and the super-hydrophilic layer by electrospinning; electrospraying the conductive coating layer on a side of the hydrophobic or the superhydrophilic layer; and drying them to obtain the biomimetic, nanofiber-based and directional moisture-wicking wearable electronic fabric.
Regarding Claim 9, Yang teaches a nanofiber-based wearable electronic fabric of analogous art (abstract), wherein the fabric comprises a hydrophobic nanofiber layer, a conductive layer, and a superhydrophilic nanofiber layer (Section 2.1 – ‘Breathable ECG e-Skin Electrodes’: “This ECG e-skin consisted of a hydrophilic outer layer, a transport layer, and a hydrophobic inner layer with gradients of both hydrophilicity and pore size (Fig. 1a). The multiwalled carbon nanotubes were sprayed between the inner layer and the transport layer as a conductive layer to ensure that the e-skin had good conductance to ECG signals”). The hydrophobic nanofiber layer and the superhydrophilic nanofiber layer are electrospun (Section 2.1, “while its melt-spun fibers had good flexibility”; also see sections 2.3 and 2.4), while the conductive layer is electrosprayed (Section 2.1, “The multiwalled carbon nanotubes were sprayed between the inner layer and the transport layer as a conductive layer to ensure that the e-skin had good conductance to ECG signals”). It has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination”- MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits or suitability of the disclosed materials (e.g. cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rovaniemi to incorporate the teachings of Yang and have the various layers include the listed materials above, since these materials offer the benefits of cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc., as stated above.
Young teaches forming a fabric of analogous art (abstract), wherein forming the fabric comprises drying the layers (para 0046). This is a widely known method from one skilled in the art (para 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rovaniemi to dry the layers, as this achieves the same expected result of forming the fabric.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claim 20 is allowed.
18. Claims 10-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNIE L SHOULDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (alternate Fridays) 8AM-5PM 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, 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.
/ANNIE L SHOULDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3794