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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-20 remain pending in the application. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections and rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claim amendments changed the scope of the claimed invention. See new grounds for rejection below.
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 1 & 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over KWON et al. (KR 20180071136 – English translation provided) herein referred to as Kwon and Xiao et al. (US 12196627) herein referred to as Xiao in further view of Quan et al. (US 20200409070) herein referred to as Quan.
Regarding Claim 1, Kwon discloses a bidirectional stretchable nerve interface (Figure 3) comprising: a stretchable fabric-based substrate (Figure 3, polymide) and a fiber-based nerve electrode which is located on the fabric-based substrate (Section 1-5) and is made of a fiber coated with a conductive composite ink containing a polymer and metal-based fillers (Section 1-4; Claim 6) wherein fabric-based substrate and the fiber-based nerve electrode are self-bonded to each other (Abstract; wherein after printing the fiber-based nerve electrode onto the substrate, it is heat-treated therefore bonding them together). However, Kwon does not explicitly disclose the stretchable fabric is located between respective layers of a plurality of self-healing polymer films and a conductive composite ink containing a self-healing polymer and the self-bonding process at room temperature without a separate adhesive.
Xiao discloses A bidirectional stretchable interface (Figure 1A) wherein a stretchable fabric is located between respective layers of a plurality of self-healing polymer films (Figure 1A, wherein stretchable strain sensor is located between two layers of polyimine which is taught to be self-healing in Column 6 lines 16-21) and a conductive composite ink containing a self-healing polymer (Figure 7; Column 1, lines 34-36; Column 11, lines 39-40; wherein LM is printed onto the polyimine substrate which is encapsulated in a polyimine film therefore the ink, LM encapsulated in polyimine contains a self-healing polymer, polyimine). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interface taught by Kwon to include self-healing polymers as taught by Xiao. The motivation being to mimic healing of the human skin with no interfaces existing at the cut after re-healing (Column 6 lines 16-21).
Quan discloses a bidirectional stretchable interface () wherein the fabric based substrate and electrode are self-bonded to each other at room temperature without a separate adhesive (Paragraph [0139]; wherein sensors comprises self-adhering surfaces to be attached to a band with no use of heat). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the self-bonding process taught by Kwon to be at room temperature without a separate adhesive material. The motivation being it allows for a low cost, low profile attachment method (Quan, Paragraph [0139]).
Regarding claim 10, Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan discloses the bidirectional stretchable nerve interface of claim 1. Kwon also discloses wherein a strain rate of the bidirectional stretchable nerve interface is 10% or more (Figure 13).
Claim 3-4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, Xiao and Quan in further view of YI et al. (US 20240415435) herein referred to as YI.
Regarding Claim 3, Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan discloses the bidirectional stretchable nerve interface of claim 1. However, Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan does not explicitly disclose wherein the stretchable fabric includes one or more selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, nylon, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), viscose, ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyglycolic acid (PGA), catgut, catgut chromic, polyglactin 910, silk, poliglecaprone, polydioxanone, polyurethane, spandex, polyglycolic acid, and polyester.
YI discloses a self-healing polymer for an electrode (Figure 1) wherein the stretchable fabric includes one or more selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, nylon, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), viscose, ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyglycolic acid (PGA), catgut, catgut chromic, polyglactin 910, silk, poliglecaprone, polydioxanone, polyurethane, spandex, polyglycolic acid, and polyester (Figure 2; silk). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stretchable fabric taught by Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan to include silk. The motivation being silk shows unique water-induced contraction (YI, Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan discloses the bidirectional stretchable nerve interface of claim 1. However, Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan does not explicitly disclose wherein the self-healing polymer is an elastomer material whose backbone is any one selected from the group consisting of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polyethyleneoxide (PEO), perfluoropolyether (PFPE), polybutylene (PB), poly(ethylene-co-1-butylene), poly(butadiene), hydrogenated poly(butadiene), poly(ethylene oxide)-poly(propylene oxide) block copolymer, random copolymer, and poly(hydroxyalkanoate).
YI discloses a self-healing polymer for an electrode (Figure 1) wherein the self-healing polymer is an elastomer material whose backbone is any one selected from the group consisting of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polyethyleneoxide (PEO), perfluoropolyether (PFPE), polybutylene (PB), poly(ethylene-co-1-butylene), poly(butadiene), hydrogenated poly(butadiene), poly(ethylene oxide)-poly(propylene oxide) block copolymer, random copolymer, and poly(hydroxyalkanoate) (Paragraph [0141]; wherein the self-healing polymer is styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene which is a block copolymer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the self healing polymer taught by Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan to include a block copolymer. The motivation being to allow for self-healing properties as well as insulative (YI, Paragraph [0141]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, Xiao and Quan in view of Eskandarian et al. (US 20240167201) herein referred to as Eskandarian.
Regarding Claim 5, Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan discloses the bidirectional stretchable nerve interface of claim 1. However, Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan does not explicitly disclose wherein the fiber may be a composite that includes one or more fibers selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, nylon (polyamide), PVDF, viscose, UHMWPE, PTFE, PGA, catgut, catgut chromic, polyglactin 910, silk, poliglecaprone, polydioxanone, polyurethane, spandex, polyglycolic acid and polyester.
Eskandarian discloses a fiber-based nerve electrode (Figure 2) wherein the fiber may be a composite that includes one or more fibers selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, nylon (polyamide), PVDF, viscose, UHMWPE, PTFE, PGA, catgut, catgut chromic, polyglactin 910, silk, poliglecaprone, polydioxanone, polyurethane, spandex, polyglycolic acid and polyester (Paragraph [0082]; wherein the electrode comprises nylon/spandex yarn). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fiber taught by Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan to be nylon/spandex. The motivation being a simple substitution of one know fiber, polyimide for another, nylon/spandex to obtain predictable results of creating a fiber based electrode (MPEP 2143 (B)).
Claim 6-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, Xiao and Quan in view of Pringle et al. (US 20180042583) herein referred to as Pringle.
Regarding Claim 6, Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan discloses the bidirectional stretchable nerve interface of claim 1 wherein the metal-based filler is a composite of metal flakes (Kwon, Section 1-4; wherein the filler comprising silver nano particles). However, Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal-based fillers is a composite in which a metal nano shell is coated on a metal flake.
Pringle discloses a metal-based fillers (Paragraph [0509]; the gold nano shell) wherein it is a composite of a metal nano shell coated on a flake (Paragraph [0509]; wherein the gold nano shell is coated on a silica core). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the silver nanoparticles to include a gold nano shell. The motivation being the tagging chemical may have fluorescent, magnetic, chemical, physical or other imaging properties and a part of the molecule may be arranged so as to ionise well for mass spectrometry analysis (Pringle, Paragraph [0523]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan discloses the bidirectional stretchable nerve interface of claim 6. Kwon also discloses wherein the metal flake includes one or more metals selected from the group consisting of silver, copper, and aluminum (Section 1-4; wherein the filler comprising silver nano particles)
Regarding Claim 8, Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan discloses the bidirectional stretchable nerve interface of claim 6. Pringle also discloses wherein the metal nanoshell includes one or more metals selected from the group consisting of platinum, gold, and iridium (Paragraph [0509]; the gold nano shell). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nanoshell taught by Kwon and Xiao in further view of Pringle to be a gold nanoshell. The motivation being gold absorbs light more strongly than alternative (Pringle, Paragraph [0526]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kwon and Xiao in further view of Quan discloses the bidirectional stretchable nerve interface of claim 6. Pringle also discloses wherein a thickness of the metal nano shell is 1nm to 50nm (Paragraph [0509]; wherein the nano shell is a few nm thick therefore at least 2nm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nano shell taught by Kwon and Xiao in further few of Pringle to be within the range of 1nm-50nm. The motivation being small nanoparticles exhibit superparamagnetic properties having no hysteresis losses and will generate heat as a result of relaxational losses, mainly Néel relaxation loss (Pringle, Paragraph [0489]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALYSSA M PAPE whose telephone number is (703)756-5947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
ALYSSA M. PAPE
Examiner
Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights