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 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending with claims 14-20 being withdrawn as per the Election (07/17/2026).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 5-6, 8A, 10A-B, 11A-C are all very difficult to see what is being shown due to the lighter shading. 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 § 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. US Patent 9,480,462 (hereinafter Pan) in view of Pezzimenti US Patent 9,420,837 (hereinafter Pezzimenti), Wijesena et al. US Publication 2015/0072582 (hereinafter Wijesena), and in further view of Liu et al. "Long-range spontaneous droplet self-propulsion on wettability gradient surfaces" 2017 (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 1, Pan discloses a liquid diode that includes a vertical liquid diode layer (superhydrophobic fabric substrate 22 patterned with hydrophilic yarn 20 that transports sweat from the skin-facing side of the textile to its outer side under a wettability differential as per column 9, lines 1–14), but is silent on the horizontal liquid diodes, the liquid collector, and the microstructures.
Pezzimenti teaches an athletic garment that includes the same general architecture but specifically details a horizontal liquid diode (layer 130 at skin facing side 133 outer facing side 131, see also column 4 lines 7-13; column 5 lines 1-3 disposed below an outer layer 110 as per column 3, lines 35-44) and details a plurality of outlets evenly distributed on the lower surface and extending from the upper to lower surfaces (112 grouped 114, column 3 lines 45-58; where intermediate layer 120 positioned between the outer and inner layers, with holes 126 aligned to the micro-perforations column 4, lines 23–50). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize Pezzimenti’s perforated, density-graded outer layer (outlets) with the layers of Pan in order to control how, and how evenly, moisture exits the assembly.
Wijesena teaches a moisture management fabric that includes a three-layer fabric comprising inner layer 1 (skin-contact side), intermediate layer 2, and outer layer 3 (atmosphere-facing side), where layer 2 acts as a liquid collector layer disposed between the other two layers (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to further modify the Pan/Pezzimenti combination by interposing the liquid collector (2) of Wijesena between the vertical layer and the horizontal outer layer (of Pan and Pezzimenti) in order to draw the moisture out and transport it to the outer channels/outlets (the gradient increasing in hydrophilicity aids in accomplishing this, [0015])
Liu teaches a liquid transport methodology that includes forming such a horizontal gradient as a plurality of microstructures distributed across the lower surface (array of raised nanopillars is graded across the surface, see Abstract; page 2 discussing Figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to further modify the horizontal liquid diode of Pan/Pezzimenti with the microstructures of Liu as including the structural topography (pillar and spacing of Liu) provides more precise, predictable control over directional liquid transport than perforation density alone.
Regarding claim 2, Pan discloses that the vertical liquid diode layer is made of a hydrophilic polyester fabric (column 19 lines 42-46 at layers 20, 22).
Regarding claim 5, Pan is silent on the microstructures. Liu teaches a nanopillar array has a pillar spacing (and corresponding exposed area) that is graded across the surface (Abstract; p. 2, Figures 1-2: spacing between SiO2 stripes decreasing from 180 µm to 0 µm). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to further modify the horizontal liquid diode of Pan/Pezzimenti with the microstructures of Liu as including the structural topography (pillar and spacing of Liu) provides more precise, predictable control over directional liquid transport than perforation density alone.
Regarding claim 6, Pan is silent on the liquid collector layer. Wijesena teaches the liquid collector (2, above), but teaches that the materials are cotton or cellulose, not specifically polyester. Pezzimenti separately establishes polyester as an art-recognized fiber for this hydrophilic, moisture-management function (column 4 lines 9–10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the material choice as taught by Pezzimenti with the combination of Pan and Wijesena (for the liquid collector) as using the same known, suitable material for the collector layer is a simple substitution yielding a predictable result (collecting and moving the liquid from one layer to another).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Pezzimenti, Wijesena, and Liu, and in further view of Lao et al. “Skin-like fabric for personal moisture management” 2020 (hereinafter Lao).
Regarding claim 3, Pan is silent on claimed method step/treatment. Lao teaches a personal moisture management device that includes the same claimed process: a PFOTES/ethanol solution mixed with Degussa P25 TiO2 nanoparticles is used to superhydrophobically coat a fabric (page 8 of 11, “Superhydrophobic finishing of cotton fabric”), after which one face is selectively exposed through a patterned tape mask to an oxygen-gas plasma etcher while the other face is fully masked (page 8 of 11, “Selective plasma treatment of the finished fabric”), producing a measured hydrophilicity difference between the two faces of each channel (pages 2, 6 discussing the resulting wettability gradient). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to use this known, art-recognized process as taught by Lao to create the desired layer gradient of Pan et al. in order to allow finer tuning of how steep the gradient is along where it sits along the channel.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Pezzimenti, Wijesena, and Liu, and in further view of Trantidou et al. “Hydrophilic surface modification of PDMS for droplet microfluidics using a simple, quick, and robust method via PVA deposition” Microsyst. Nanoeng. 3, 16091, 2017 (hereinafter Trantidou).
Regarding claim 4, Pan’s three-layer structure is fabricated from PDMS (column 9 line 65 through column 10 line 2). Trantidou discloses coating plasma-oxidized PDMS with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) to achieve durable, long-lasting hydrophilicity, in contrast to the transient hydrophilicity produced by plasma treatment alone (Abstract; page 3, “Surface wettability study of PVA-treated PDMS” section). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to apply the PVA coating as taught by Trantidou to Pan’s PDMS layer to obtain a more stable hydrophilic surface for the same directional-transport purpose.
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Pezzimenti, Wijesena, and Liu, and in further view of Gudibande US Publication 2021/0212603 (hereinafter Gudibande).
Regarding claim 7, Pan as modified by Pezzimenti, Wijesena, and Liu teaches the 3D liquid diode (see contents of rejected claim 1 above), but is silent on the electrodes, magnetic coupling elements, and the associated circuits. Gudibande discloses a sweat-facing patch used for continuous disease monitoring from sweat ([0092]) with permeable electrode contacts 103 and sensor elements 105 detecting biomarkers in sweat ([0105]); a substrate comprising embedded first magnetic coupling elements ([0005], [0109] which details magnetic material within the layer that couples to that of the circuitry); and a flexible electronic circuit that is magnetically and mechanically detachable to the substrate ([0005][0092][0144]), carrying its own second magnetic coupling elements 205 arranged to interface with the substrate’s magnetic material ([0153]) and a PCB 201 with an integrated microcontroller connected via pogo pins to the electrodes for signal processing ([0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to incorporate the magnetically coupled, electrode-and-microcontroller architecture of Gudibande with the liquid-diode substrate of Pan et al. in order to allow sensing on the same type of reuseable, wearable device that both Gudibande and the combination of Pan et al. discloses. Gudibande does not explicitly detail that the electrodes are permeable, however fabric or breathable electrodes are incredibly common for skin contacting devices and are well known enough that Official Notice is being taken regarding the material choice of the electrodes.
Regarding claim 8, see contents of rejected claim 2 above.
Regarding claims 11-12, see contents of rejected claims 5-6 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Pezzimenti, Wijesena, Liu, and Gudibande, and in further view of Lao.
Regarding claim 9, see contents of rejected claim 3 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Pezzimenti, Wijesena, Liu, and Gudibande, and in further view of Trantidou.
Regarding claim 10, see contents of rejected claim 4 above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Pezzimenti, Wijesena, Liu, and Gudibande, and in further view of Rogers US Publication 2017/0224257 (hereinafter Rogers).
Regarding claim 13, Pan as modified by Pezzimenti, Wijesena, Liu, and Gudibande is silent on the serpentine shaping. Rogers teaches a skin contacting sensing device that includes serpentine-shaped electrode units arranged to form an open-mesh network ([0288] which details the shaping as well as being made of gold). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the serpentine-shaped mesh as taught by Rogers with the device of Pan et al (relying on Gudibande for the electrodes/unit) in order to allow for greater mechanical flexibility (the serpentine shaping affords greater stretchability without having to adjust materials due to the geometry). The permeable electrode rendered obvious above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian M Antiskay whose telephone number is (571)270-5179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm 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.
/BRIAN M ANTISKAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights