DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on March 16, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. A final action on the merits of claims 1-20 is as follows.
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 . 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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrido Ariza (U.S. PGPub. No. 2024/0269460), in view of Ye et al. (NPL: Laser-Induced Graphene), and further in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter ‘Kim’, NPL: Laser Scribing of Fluorinated Polyimide Films to Generate Microporous Structures for High-Performance Micro-supercapacitor Electrodes).
In regards to independent claims 1 and 12 and claims 2, 6-9, 13, and 20, Garrido Ariza discloses a neural stimulation device (a neural interface device 10 in Fig. 1) and a method of stimulating a nerve of a subject, comprising placing a neural stimulation device with sufficient proximity to the nerve to thereby stimulate the nerve ([0016]: “present invention is preferably a neural interface device for neurostimulation, in particular an electrode for cortical and/or deep brain stimulation”) comprising:
a substrate (electrically conductive material 12 in Fig. 3); and at least one layer of graphene oxide deposited on the substrate (porous material 18 is a graphene oxide material which is inherently porous and is disposed on the material 12, [0063]);
wherein the at least one layer of graphene oxide forms a neural electrode for stimulation and/or recording ([0016]).
The examiner notes that graphene is different from graphene oxide and therefore, Garrido Ariza does not disclose at least one layer of porous graphene.
Ye teaches that a conventional method for fabricating a 3D carbon structure using graphene oxide (GO) which requires a need for the GO precursor to be prepared through its oxidative acid synthesis process to form the graphene oxide into a foam. Ye teaches a safe and cost effective process to provide a 3D carbon structure by a direct lasing of polyimide (PI) plastic film which converts the PI into a 3D porous graphene, a material termed laser-induced graphene (LIG) (conspectus). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the at least one layer of graphene oxide of Garrido Ariza with graphene as taught by Ye, as doing so allows for 3D porous graphene structure in a simple and cost effective process.
However, Garrido Ariza/Ye combination fails to disclose the at least one layer of porous graphene on or within a transparent polymer film deposited on the substrate and the porous graphene having a BET specific surface area of at least 300 m2/g.
Kim teaches a method of manufacturing 3D graphene structure (pg. 208, Introduction, col. 1, para. 1) using a transparent polymer film which is a fluorinated polyimide and at least one layer of porous graphene thereof (pg. 208, col. 1, para. 2: “starting materials for LIGs include graphene oxide and flexible polymer film”). Kim further teaches laser-based graphitization which is the same method as taught by Ye to form a fluorinated polyimide based highly microporous graphene (LIG-fPI) electrode shown in Fig. 1a labeled ‘Highly Microporous Graphene” and the use of a 10.6 um CO2 laser cutter system (pg. 212, col. 1, Experimental Methods, thus meeting claims 7 and 8). Kim explains that the fluorinated polyimide comprises at least one aromatic ring (pg. 209: col. 1, para. 1: “Fluorinated carbon or aromatic polymeric compounds undergo defluorination during pyrolysis at 1000 °C to form microporous structures, such as trifluoromethyl moieties (−CF3), thus meeting claim 6 and 9. Kim further explains that the LIG-fPI electrode has macropores, mesopores and micropores (pg. 210, col. 2, para. 3: “LIG-fPI exhibited…hierarchical porous structures containing meso-, macro-, and micropores”) and the specific surface area of LIG-fPI using Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) equation equals to 1126.0 m2/g (pg. 211, col. 1, para. 1), thus meeting claim 2. Given that Garrido Ariza combination generally teaches providing the 3D graphene structure on a substrate (layer 18 disposed on substrate 12 in Fig. 4 of Garrido Ariza) and Ye teaches the electrode is a porous graphene structure formed from laser induced method, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a fluorinated polyimide 3D nanostructured laser-induced graphene on a fluorinated polyimide as taught by Kim, thereby arriving at the claimed arrangement of the at least one layer of porous graphene formed on or within the fluorinated polyimide on the substrate of Garrido Ariza and arrive at the property of the porous graphene having a BET specific surface area of at least 300 m2/g to exhibit highly porous and therefore exceptional areal capacitance and energy densities which are important properties for charge transfer in a stimulation electrode (abstract).
In regards to claim 3-4, in view of the combination in claim 1, Kim further discloses that the at least one layer of porous graphene on or within the fluorinated polyimide film including the macropores, mesopores, micropores and nanopores exhibits a Horvath-Kawazoe pore volume of 0.2-0.8 cm3/g (pg. 211, col. 1, para. 1: “the micropore volumes and average sizes were evaluated based on the Horvath-Kawazoe equation. The micropore volume of LIG-fPI…[was] calculated to be 0.4023 cm3g-1”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the claimed pore volume as that is an inherent property of the LIG-fPI electrode.
In regards to claim 5, in view of the combination in claim 1, Kim further discloses the at least one layer of porous graphene has a mean graphene interlayer spacing of 0.35-0.45 nm (pg. 210, col. 2, para. 1: “the average gap between neighboring graphene layers was calculated to be 0.39 nm”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to yield the mean graphene interlayer spacing as claimed as that is an inherent property of the LIG-fPI electrode.
In regards to claim 11, in view of the combination in claim 14 above, Kim further discloses that the thickness of the transparent polymer film having an average thickness of 120 um (pg. 210, col. 1, para. 2: “the cross-sectional SEM images of a ~120 um thick fPI layer”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to yield the average thickness as claimed as that is an inherent property of the LIG-fPI electrode.
In regards to independent claim 14 and claim 16, Garrido Arizadiscloses a neural stimulation device (a neural interface device 10 in Fig. 1) comprising at least one layer of graphene oxide forms a neural electrode for stimulation and/or recording ([0016]).
The examiner notes that graphene is different from graphene oxide and therefore, Garrido Ariza does not disclose at least one layer of porous graphene.
Ye teaches that a conventional method for fabricating a 3D carbon structure using graphene oxide (GO) which requires a need for the GO precursor to be prepared through its oxidative acid synthesis process to form the graphene oxide into a foam. Ye teaches a safe and cost effective process to provide a 3D carbon structure by a direct lasing of polyimide (PI) plastic film which converts the PI into a 3D porous graphene, a material termed laser-induced graphene (LIG) (conspectus). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the at least one layer of graphene oxide of Garrido Ariza with graphene as taught by Ye, as doing so allows for 3D porous graphene structure in a simple and cost effective process.
However, Gaarrido Ariza/Ye combination does not disclose a transparent polymer film comprising a fluorinated polyimide having at least one aromatic ring; and graphitizing the fluorinated polyimide to form at least one layer of porous graphene on or within the transparent polymer film.
Kim teaches a method of manufacturing of 3D graphene structure (pg. 208, Introduction, col. 1, para. 1). Kim teaches providing a transparent polymer film (fluorinated polyimide shown in Fig. 1a; note that the fPI is transparent) wherein the transparent polymer film comprises a fluorinated polyimide having at least one aromatic ring (pg. 209: col. 1, para. 1: “Fluorinated carbon or aromatic polymeric compounds undergo defluorination during pyrolysis at 1000 °C to form microporous structures... trifluoromethyl moieties (−CF3) in fluorinated aromatic polyimides (fPIs)”), thus meeting claim 16. Furthermore, Kim teaches graphitizing the fluorinated polyimide to form at least one layer of porous graphene on or within the transparent polymer film (pg. 208, col., 1, para. 2: during laser irradiation, carbon atoms in the aromatic backbone of PI can be sp2 hybridized to for 3D porous structure; note that the process of laser irradiation is laser-based graphitization).
Given that Garrido Ariza/Ye combination generally teaches providing the 3D graphene structure on a substrate (layer 18 disposed on substrate 12 in Fig. 4 of Garrido Ariza), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to manufacture the 3D graphene structure using the method of manufacturing of a 3D nanostructured laser-induced graphene patterned on fluorinated polyimide (fPIs) as taught by Kim, as doing so provides an electrode exhibiting exceptional areal capacitance, high power and energy densities (abstract).
In regards to claim 15, in view of the combination in claim 14 above, Kim further teaches the specific surface area of LIG-fPI using Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) equation equal to 1126.0 m2/g (pg. 211, col. 1, para. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with the specific surface area as claimed as that is an inherent property of the LIG-fPI electrode.
In regards to claim 18, in view of the combination in claim 14 above, Kim further discloses that the thickness of the transparent polymer film having an average thickness of 120 um (pg. 210, col. 1, para. 2: “the cross-sectional SEM images of a ~120 um thick fPI layer”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to yield the average thickness as claimed as that is an inherent property of the LIG-fPI electrode.
In regards to claim 19, in view of the combination in claim 14 above, Kim further discloses wherein the at least one layer of porous graphene has an average thickness of 10-180 um (pg. 210, col. 1, para. 2: “the cross-sectional SEM images of… a ~50 um thick LIG-fPI layer”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to yield the average thickness as claimed as that is an inherent property of the LIG-fPI electrode.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrido, Ye and Kim as applied to claim 6/1 and 14 above, and further in view of Mochizuki et al. (hereinafter ‘Mochizuku’, JP 2005165256).
In regard to claims 10 and 17, Garrido/Ye/Kim combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 6/1 and 14 and discussed above.
However, Garrido/Ye/Kim combination does not disclose wherein the fluorinated polyimide is prepared by thermal imidization of a precursor polyamic acid film.
Mochizuku teaches providing fluorinated polyimide resin for forming a fluorinated polyimide film by preparing a polyamic acid having fluorine atom in a molecule from textracarboxylic dianhydride and diamine as a precursor and heating it ([0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the fluorinated polyimide of Garrido/Ye/Kim combination from a precursor polyamic acid film having fluorine atom and thermally heating the mixture as taught by Mochizuku as doing so is a well-known method of providing a fluorinated polyimide film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12 and 14 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection has been made in view of Ye et al. (NPL: Laser-Induced Graphene).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EUNHWA KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1265. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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.
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794 3/30/2026