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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 11, 2024 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 5, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “electrod” should be “electrode”. 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being taught by Zhou et al. (Super-tough MXene-functionalized graphene sheets. Nat Commun 11, 2077 (2020)).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou teaches an electrode (see Fig. 4) comprising:
a π electron conjugated compound film which comprises a π electron conjugated compound having a carbon-carbon double bond (e.g. graphene oxide; see Abstract in p. 1);
and a conductive film bonded to the π electron conjugated compound film, wherein the conductive film comprises particles of a layered material comprising one or plural layers, the one or plural layers comprising a layer body represented by: MmXn wherein M is at least one metal of Group 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7, X is a carbon atom, a nitrogen atom, or a combination thereof, n is not less than 1 and not more than 4, and m is more than n but not more than 5, and a modifier or terminal T existing on a surface of the layer body, wherein T is at least one selected from the group consisting of a hydroxyl group, a fluorine atom, a chlorine atom, an oxygen atom, and a hydrogen atom, (e.g., Ti3C2Tx; see p. 2, col. 1, para 2),
and wherein a ratio of an amount of the π electron conjugated compound film to a total amount of the conductive film and the π electron conjugated compound film is not less than 5% by mass and not more than 80% by mass (see p. 2, col. 2, para. 3, “All samples were assembled by using basically the same method, and are termed MGO-I, MGO-II, MGO-III, MGO-IV, and MGO-V, depending upon the weight percent of MXene (5.5, 9.9, 17.7, 29.9, and 45.1 wt%, respectively).”).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhou teaches the π electron conjugated compound is a reduced graphene oxide (see Abstract in p. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhou teaches a thickness of the π-electron conjugated compound film is 16 μm (see Supplementary Figure 4 in Supplementary Information p. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 9-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (Super-tough MXene-functionalized graphene sheets. Nat Commun 11, 2077 (2020)).
Regarding Claim 5 and 6 and 9, Zhou fails to disclose a number-average value of a ferret diameter of the particles of the layered material that is not less than 3 μm (see p.2, col. 1, para. 3, “The exfoliated MXene nanosheets have . . . a lateral size of ~1.5 μm”). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the average value of a ferret diameter of the MXene particles to be no less than 3 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, for example, in order to reduce the poor oxidization of the MXene and increase the number of bonds between the surfaces to aid in stability.
Regarding Claim 4 and 11 and 13, Zhou does not explicitly teach an area of at least 80% of a surface of the conductive film on a side thereof facing the π electron conjugated compound film is covered with the π electron conjugated compound film. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least 80% of a surface be covered since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, at least some surface contact is disclosed (see e.g. Fig. 1), and although the reference is silent as to the dimension of the surface that is covered, the invention would perform just as well with the claimed range, and a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to have the surface of the conductive film on a side thereof facing the π electron conjugated compound film be covered with the π electron conjugated compound film as much as feasible to reduce the oxidization of the MXene and aid in stability.
Regarding Claim 10 and 14, Zhou teaches the π electron conjugated compound is a reduced graphene oxide (see Abstract in p. 1).
Claims 7-8, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (Super-tough MXene-functionalized graphene sheets. Nat Commun 11, 2077 (2020)) in view of Sharifuzzaman et al. (Smart bandage with integrated multifunctional sensors based on MXene-functionalized porous graphene scaffold for chronic wound care management, Biosensors and Bioelectronics, Volume 169 (2020).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, 12, 15, and 16, Zhou does not explicitly teach the electrode is constructed as a biosignal electrode. However, Sharifuzzaman teaches that electrodes with a π electron conjugated compound film (e.g., laser guided graphene) and MXene conductive films offer abundant surface functionalities suitable for sensing different biological signals (see p. 2, col. 1, para. 2). Sharifuzzaman also provides for a smart bandage with integrated multifunctional sensors based on MXene-functionalized porous graphene (see Abstract). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhou and Sharifuzzaman to provide that the electrode be constructed as a biosignal electrode. Doing so would introduce the structural advantages of high conductivity and improved electrochemistry (as recognized by Zhou and Sharifuzzaman) in another type of use (biosignals).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN M SARCENO ROBLES whose telephone number is (571)272-8786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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.
/C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights