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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 9-16 are withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 and Species A in the reply filed on 2/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 2/21/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 2 has multiple compounds represented as Figure 2(a)
Figures 7-9 are too blurry.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Casado et al. (“Injectable PEDOT:PSS/cholinium ionic liquid mixed conducting materials for electrocardiogram recordings”).
Regarding claim 1, Casado teaches a method comprising: mixing and reacting a solution including a conductive polymer, PEDOT:PSS, and an ionic reactant comprising a positive ion of choline and a negative ion of acetate (which would enable deprotonation of the conductive polymer), see Preparation of PEDOT:PSS/IL composites section; applying the reaction product to a substrate and performing a baking/annealing step (Preparation of electrodes section). Casado teaches all the limitations of claim 1; therefore, Casado anticipates the claim.
2. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo et al. (“Fibrillary gelation and dedoping of PEDOT:PSS fibers for interdigitated organic electrochemical transistors and circuits”).
Regarding claim 1, Jo teaches a method comprising: mixing and reacting a solution including a conductive polymer, PEDOT:PSS, and an ionic reactant comprising a positive ion of choline and a negative ion of acetate (which would enable deprotonation of the conductive polymer), see Preparation of fibrillary gelation of conductive fibers section; applying the reaction product to a substrate and performing a baking/annealing step (Preparation of fibrillary gelation of conductive fibers section). Jo teaches all the limitations of claim 1; therefore, Jo anticipates the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3. Claim(s) 2-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casado in view of Ouyang et al. (WO 2012/158125).
I. Regarding claims 2, 5 and 7, Casado teaches all the limitations of claim 1, including the conductive polymer including a sulfonate group (see above), the positive ion of the ionic reactant is choline (see above, and note that this is the same positive ion disclosed in Applicant’s specification and the PEDOT:PSS is the same conductive polymer disclosed in Applicant’s specification so that inherently it is known that this positive ion will perform a Hofmeister interaction with the sulfonate groups of PEDOT:PSS), and a third step of applying the reaction product onto a substrate and performing a heat treatment (see above). Casado fails to teach a second step of additionally mixing and reacting an amphiphilic reactant after the first mixing step.
However, Ouyang teaches mixing and reacting an amphiphilic fluorine compound with PEDOT:PSS (abstract, page 2, lines 12-27 and Example 1, page 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Casado’s process by additionally including a step of mixing and reacting the PEDOT:PSS with an amphiphilic compound as disclosed by Ouyang. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Ouyang teaches that the inclusion of the amphiphilic compound provides improved electrical conductivity to the PEDOT:PSS and is cheap and scalable (page 6, lines1-7).
II. Regarding claim 3, it is noted that the claim does not require a crystal structure to be formed. Furthermore, it is known that PEDOT:PSS can form lamella crystal structures. Additionally, Casado in view of Ouyang is teaching an essentially identical process using the polymer and the positive ionic reactant disclosed in the specification as noted above as well as an amphiphilic compound and would be expected to yield PEDOT:PSS that can form a lamella structure. Therefore, the process of Casado in view of Ouyang inherently yields a product which will allow for the PEDOT:PSS to form a lamella structure.
III. Regarding claim 4, Casado in view of Ouyang teach all the limitations of claim 2 (see above), but fail to teach the negative ion is bicarbonate. However, Casado does teach using choline bicarbonate to form the choline acetate by mixing with acid (Synthesis of cholinium-based ionic liquids). Casado teaches a two step process of forming the choline acetate from choline bicarbonate and then mixing with PEDOT:PSS. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Casado in view of Ouyang’s process by mixing the choline bicarbonate with acid and the PEDOT:PSS in a single step (such that the ionic reactant is choline bicarbonate) to yield the final product. Furthermore, the selection of any order of mixing ingredients/order of process steps has been held prima facie obvious absent evidence of unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In reBurhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In reGibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). Therefore, claim 4 is obvious over Casado in view of Ouyang.
IV. Regarding claim 8, Casado in view of Ouyang teach all the limitations of claim 7 (see above), including a baking step after deposition (see above). Casado in view of Ouyang fail to explicitly teach the baking temperature. However, the temperature is a result-effective variable as Casado shows that too high of a temperature will degrade the composite (see Figure 4), while too low of a temperature will not allow for complete curing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, 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 Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
4. Claim(s) 2-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo in view of Ouyang.
I. Regarding claims 2, 5, 7 and 8, Jo teaches all the limitations of claim 1, including the conductive polymer including a sulfonate group (see above), the positive ion of the ionic reactant is choline (see above, and note that this is the same positive ion disclosed in Applicant’s specification and the PEDOT:PSS is the same conductive polymer disclosed in Applicant’s specification so that inherently it is known that this positive ion will perform a Hofmeister interaction with the sulfonate groups of PEDOT:PSS), and a third step of applying the reaction product onto a substrate and performing a heat treatment (see above) at a temperature of 150 ºC (see Jo at Preparation of fibrillary gelation of conductive fibers section). Jo fails to teach a second step of additionally mixing and reacting an amphiphilic reactant after the first mixing step.
However, Ouyang teaches mixing and reacting an amphiphilic fluorine compound with PEDOT:PSS (abstract, page 2, lines 12-27 and Example 1, page 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jo’s process by additionally including a step of mixing and reacting the PEDOT:PSS with an amphiphilic compound as disclosed by Ouyang. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Ouyang teaches that the inclusion of the amphiphilic compound provides improved electrical conductivity to the PEDOT:PSS and is cheap and scalable (page 6, lines1-7).
II. Regarding claim 3, it is noted that the claim does not require a crystal structure to be formed. Furthermore, it is known that PEDOT:PSS can form lamella crystal structures. Additionally, Jo in view of Ouyang is teaching an essentially identical process using the polymer and the positive ionic reactant disclosed in the specification as noted above as well as an amphiphilic compound and would be expected to yield PEDOT:PSS that can form a lamella structure. Therefore, the process of Jo in view of Ouyang inherently yields a product which will allow for the PEDOT:PSS to form a lamella structure.
III. Regarding claim 4, Jo in view of Ouyang teach all the limitations of claim 2 (see above), but fail to teach the negative ion is bicarbonate. However, Jo does teach using choline bicarbonate to form the choline acetate by mixing with acid (Preparation of fibrillary gelation of conductive fibers). Jo teaches a two step process of forming the choline acetate from choline bicarbonate and then mixing with PEDOT:PSS. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jo in view of Ouyang’s process by mixing the choline bicarbonate with acid and the PEDOT:PSS in a single step (such that the ionic reactant is choline bicarbonate) to yield the final product. Furthermore, the selection of any order of mixing ingredients/order of process steps has been held prima facie obvious absent evidence of unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In reBurhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In reGibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). Therefore, claim 4 is obvious over Jo in view of Ouyang.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the use of DPPC as an amphiphilic reactant in a two step process as claimed with a conductive polymer and an ionic reactant. Therefore, claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Conclusion
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 8 are rejected.
Claim 6 is objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
May 1, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights