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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/237296 A1 (Royal) in view of US 2018/0039117 A1 (Ikeda)
Royal discloses a laser system comprising: a laser; and a scanner configured to irradiate laser beams, which are outputted from the femtosecond laser on fabric ([0051]), according to a graphene pattern (220), wherein an electronic textile with graphene patterned on the fabric is manufactured by the laser beams (200, [0052]). Royal does not specifically disclose that the laser is a femtosecond laser [claim 1]. However, such lasers are well known in the art as evidenced by Ikeda ([0252]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use a femtosecond laser in the invention of Royal as is known in the art and evidenced by Ikeda. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a known device with precise pulse timing.
Additionally, the modified invention of Royal teaches wherein the graphene pattern and a structure of the fabric are differently determined depending on applications of the electronic textile ([0052]-[0053]) [claim 2], wherein the fabric is a non-woven fabric (Royal [0004]) when the application of the electronic textile is an energy storage device (Royal [0003]) [claim 3], wherein the fabric is a non-woven fabric (Royal [0004]) when the application of the electronic textile is a temperature sensor (Royal [0008]) [claim 4], wherein the fabric is a knit fabric (Royal [0060]) when the application of the electronic textile is a strain sensor [claim 5], wherein the graphene is patterned on the knit fabric in a pre-strain state in which the knit fabric is stretched within a predetermined range (Royal [0002]) [claim 6], wherein the fabric is a woven fabric when the application of the electronic textile is a bending sensor (Royal [0063]) [claim 7].
Similarly, Royal discloses a method of manufacturing a laser-induced graphene-based electronic textile (200, [0052]), the method comprising: receiving a graphene pattern (220); and manufacturing an electronic textile with patterned graphene by irradiating directly laser beams of a laser on a fabric according to a graphene pattern by using a computer-programmable scanner ([0034]). Royal does not specifically disclose that the laser is a femtosecond laser [claim 9]. However, such lasers are well known in the art as evidenced by Ikeda ([0252]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use a femtosecond laser in the invention of Royal as is known in the art and evidenced by Ikeda. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a known device with precise pulse timing.
Furthermore, the modified invention of Royal teaches wherein the graphene pattern and a structure of the fabric are differently determined depending on applications of the electronic textile (Royal [0051]-[0054]) [claim 10], wherein the manufacturing the electronic textile comprises manufacturing an energy storage device (Royal [0003]) by irradiating directly the laser beams on a non-woven fabric (Royal [0004]) when the application of the electronic textile is the energy storage device [claiom 11], wherein the manufacturing the electronic textile comprises manufacturing a temperature sensor (Royal [0008]) by irradiating directly the laser beams on a non-woven fabric (Royal [0004]) when the application of the electronic textile is the temperature sensor [claim 12], wherein the manufacturing the electronic textile comprises manufacturing a strain sensor (Royal [0008]) by irradiating directly the laser beams on a knit fabric (Royal [0063]) when the application of the electronic textile is the strain sensor [claim 13], wherein the manufacturing the electronic textile comprises patterning graphene by irradiating directly the laser beams on the knit fabric in a pre-strain state (Royal [0002]) in which the knit fabric is stretched within a predetermined range [claim 14], wherein the manufacturing the electronic textile comprises manufacturing a bending sensor (Royal [0008]) by irradiating directly the laser beams on a woven fabric when the application of the electronic textile is the bending sensor [claim 15].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 states the limitation “wherein the bending sensor is used as a voice recognition sensor that distinguishes between voices by detecting voice vibration by means of a woven structure including weft and warp of the woven fabric.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art. Claim 15 states the limitation “wherein the bending sensor is used as a voice recognition sensor that distinguishes between voices by detecting voice vibration by means of a woven structure including weft and warp of the woven fabric.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1932. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15-15:15 M-F.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571)272-2342. 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.
JEREMY C. NORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2847
/JEREMY C NORRIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847