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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 16, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment filed with the RCE submission of June 16, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11, line 4, now has co-spinning with a first solution “that includes a metal ion and an electroless plating initiator”. However, there is no disclosure in the specification as to specifically providing that a first solution contains both a metal ion and a separate electroless plating initiator, or even the specific use of a metal ion. Therefore the claim contains new matter. The dependent claims do not cure the claims from which they depend, and so also contain new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11, lines 4, refers to a first solution that includes a metal ion and an electroless plating initiator. As worded, it is unclear if it is intended, that there is an electroless plating initiator material and a further separate metal ion, or whether the metal ion can be part of the initiator. For the purpose of examination, either is understood to meet the claim requirements,
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of all the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPWO 2015/111755 (hereinafter ‘755) in view of Costella et al (US 2022/0151530), Dagger et al (US 2010/0143435) and Henderson et al (US 2019/0301064), EITHER alone OR further in view of Cleveland et al (US 5407622) and Japan 61-102478 (hereinafter ‘478).
Claims 1, 11: ‘755 teaches a method for creating a network of fibers (note Example 1, the mat, page 9, translation). The process includes performing an electrospinning process to form/deposit a first mixture/ solution including a polymer and an electroless plating initiator/metal dopant/metal doping to form a fiber network/mat containing metal doped fibers (note Example 1, page 9, translation, with Pd metal doping, pages 3, 6-7, translation). Spinning/deposition is stopped for the first mixture/solution, and the metal doped fibers are metallized with metal by electroless plating (note Example 1, page 9, translation, page 7, translation, and a porous matrix results, note figures 4, 5). ‘755 notes how it is desired to provide light and flexible conductive fibers which can be nanofibers (note page 2, translation), and use the product for things such as battery electrodes, sensor electrodes, antistatic sheets, electromagnetic wave shields, etc. (note page 3, translation). The electroless plating can be with gold (note page 7, translation). For claim 11, as to the first solution that forms a metal doped fiber being formed from a first solution that includes a metal ion and an electroless plating initiator, as discussed above, the first solution would contain initiator in the form of metal/Pd particles, for example (note pages 3, 5, 7, translation, for example), and additionally as to the solution containing metal ions, it is indicated that the metal particles can be formed by reducing metal ions in solution that polymer has been added to (as part of forming the overall solution for spinning) (note page 5, translation), and therefore, it would be expected that at least some metal ions that had not fully reacted to form metal particles would be present in the resulting material used for making the solution for spinning, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results.
(A) As to the fiber matrix being biocompatible and the resulting porous matrix comprising only biocompatible materials (claims 1, 11),
Costella further describes how it can be desirable to provide nanofiber based material systems that can be used for electrodes, including in biomedical applications (note 0003). The fibers can be provided as electrospun nanofiber mats used for surgical implantation and sustained biodirectional communication with human tissue, with matching of biological tissue properties while maintain electrical properties, where the materials have flexibility and biocompatibility (note 0008, 0048). The fibers can be provided as a mass of nanofibers with electrical conductive traces formed on the fibrous substrate, where the fibers are polymer materials (note 0014), where the can be metallic coating deposited on the nanofiber substrate (note 0017), with an example given of metal evaporation to form metal coated fibers (note 0075). The coating can be with gold (note 0017).
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 ‘755 to specifically form the fibers and fiber matrix of biocompatible polymer material and have the resulting plated porous matrix comprise only biocompatible materials as suggested by Costella to form desirable electrodes for use, since ‘755 provides for depositing polymer fibers by electrospinning to form a network/mat and providing metal/plating on the fibers with metal such as gold, where the porous product formed can be used for electrodes, and Costella describes how an electrospun polymer fiber mat can be provided and coated with metal such as gold to form electrode products for use in biomedical implant actions, where for such use the fibers would be biocompatible, and since used for implant, the resulting porous matrix would be desired to be only made of biocompatible materials, thus suggesting that when making electrodes as described by ‘755 use of biocompatible materials should be made to allow biomedical implant electrodes to be made as well.
(B) As to depositing/co-spinning the first mixture/solution and a second mixture/solution that includes a polymer (but not an initiator/metal doping/dopant) on a collector at the same time/simultaneously, to form metal doped fibers and fibers that have not been metal doped/non-metal doped fibers, respectively, and stopping deposition for both mixtures/solutions,
Dagger further describes that it is known when electrospinning to create fibrous scaffolds/membranes/network in the form of non-woven fabric (which can be considered a mat) resulting from the random deposition of polymer fibers onto a target (collector) (note 0002), where it is desired to increase pore size in scaffolds (0006), where Dagger describes how small fiber diameters can be provided with large pore sizes (note 0009), where the method include depositing a first set of fibers from a first solution with a polymer and a second set of fibers from a second solution with a polymer to form a polymer scaffold, where the first and second solutions/mixtures can be deposited simultaneously (so co-spinning of the electrospinning of each fiber) onto the target/collector giving a substantially homogeneous distribution of the first and second polymer fibers throughout the scaffold/network (note 0010-0022, 0026-0040), where after the depositing the second set of fibers is removed from the scaffold (note 0013-0014, 0077), where this removal creates the optimal pore size and porous matrix (note 0014, 0046, 0077). It is noted that the first solution that deposits the first fibers (that remain) can be provided with additional attaching materials (so a doped solution) that can be a biological, chemical or mineral agent and be doped into the resulting fiber (note 0053), and thus the deposited scaffold/network of fibers of the two different materials can be considered a “hybrid” network of two different fibers. Dagger further describes that the polymers used can be biocompatible (note 0026, 0031).
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 ‘755 in view of Costella to further provide the fiber mats of ‘755 by providing the first mixture/solution including a polymer and with metal doping as in ‘755 and also providing a second mixture/solution including a polymer and without metal doping and simultaneously deposit both mixtures on a collector (by electrospinning in a co-spinning process) providing a mixed deposition of initiator/metal doped fibers from the first solution and non-initiator/non-metal doped fibers from the second solution, that upon deposition define a hybrid network of fibers, stopping the depositing of both fibers, removing the non-initiator/non-metal doped fibers and metallizing the initiator/metal doped fibers with a metal by electroless plating as suggested by Dagger with an expectation of providing a desirable network fibers that can have selectively controlled porosity, since ‘755 noted the desire to form metal plated fiber networks/mats that are light and flexible and used for various purposes, where the fibers are formed by electrospinning metal doped polymer solutions, and Costella suggests that such metal plated fiber networks/mats can be used for biomedical applications with biocompatible materials and Dagger notes how to make more porous fiber mats/scaffolds (which would provide for reduced weight, etc.) formed by electrospinning where first solution/mixture including a polymer is used to deposit first fibers on a collector, where the first solution can be doped to provide doped fibers and simultaneously a second solution/mixture including a polymer (non-doped) is used to deposit second fibers mixed in with the first on the collector by electrospinning (so a co-spinning process), and then the depositing stopped (so there would be a hybrid network upon deposition of these fibers) and the second fiber removed to leave a more porous mat/scaffold with first fibers, and by providing this removal before metallizing, for example, as described in ‘755 it would allow for a more open/porous/lightweight resulting metal plated fiber mat of the fibers desired to be plated in ‘755, and there would be no reason to initiator/metal dope the second fibers since they are to be removed and not plated. By providing the electroless plating of ‘755 after the second fibers are removed, there would still be selective metallizing of the first/metal doped fiber portion of the hybrid network of fibers, because only the first/metal doped portion is plated. Note that applicant’s own claims allow for removal of the second/non-metal doped fibers from the hybrid network of fibers (as in claim 6), with no limitation of when non-metal doped fibers are removed (so would be inclusive of removing before plating). Furthermore, Dagger suggests that the polymers used can be biocompatible, further indicting to only use biocompatible materials for the porous matrix.
(B) Additionally, as to controlling a rate at which the first mixture/solution is deposited and a rate at which the second mixture/solution is deposited to control a ratio of the metal doped fibers and fibers that have not been metal doped determined by the respective deposition rates of the fibers in the resulting hybrid network/mat of fibers, Dagger notes various conditions including polymer concentration, etc. can be adjusted to influence the type of structures formed (note 0025).
Henderson further describes how when electrospinning, a first polymer solution with a polymer can be provided and a second polymer solution with a polymer provided, and these solutions can be simultaneously electrospun (so co-spinning) on a drum/mandrel to form a hybrid network/mat of mixed (blended) first and second fibers, respectively, from the solutions (note 0006, 0007, 0050, 0055, 0056, 0039, 0041, 0025, 0025). It is described that by controlling the rate at which each of the first and second polymer solutions is deposited, the ratio of first fibers to second fibers in the resulting network of fibers is controlled (note 0056). It is further indicated that the materials formed are to be used in the field of biomaterials, in contact with biological systems, including tissue regeneration and biosensors to control patient treatment (Note 0009, 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify ‘755 in view of Costella and Dagger to specifically control the rate at which each of the first and second solutions/mixtures is deposited, in order to control the ratio of first fibers to second fibers in the resulting network of fibers as suggested by Henderson with an expectation of providing a desirable resulting structure, since Dagger would indicate removing the second fibers of a mixed electrospun network of fibers of first and second fibers to control porosity in the resultant network, and Henderson further indicates how when electrospinning (co-spinning) the amount of each first and second fiber present in the network can be controlled by controlling the rate at which each of the first and second polymer solutions is deposited, such that the ratio of first fibers to second fibers in the resulting network of fibers is controlled and determined by the respective deposition rates of the fibers, which will help control how light and porous the resulting fiber network is when the second fiber removed, since the more fiber removed, the lighter/more porous the article is, and one would optimize the results for the specific article to be produced, and Henderson indicates to use materials for biological contact, and so the materials would be suggested to be biocompatible for such use as indicated by Dagger and Costella. As a result of the combination process described above, a hybrid network of fibers as claimed would be provided.
(C) Optionally, further using Cleveland and ‘478, if the electroless plating to selectively metallize the metal doped fiber portion of the hybrid network is intended to be provided before the second fibers are removed (noting the removal of fibers suggested by Dagger and required by present claim 6, for example), ‘755 provides that the metal doping of the polymer fibers where metal particles are present on the fiber surface, and this allows for electroless plating to occur on the fibers without further plating pretreatment, such as catalyzing (note page 7, translation, indicating that the metal doping provides for an electroless plating initializing, and as well, that non-metal doped fibers would need pretreatment, including catalyzation, to be plated on).
Cleveland describes that combined articles of a first catalytic polymer can be provided and a second non-catalytic polymer provided, where electroless plating to the combined article can be selectively just provided to the catalytic polymer (note abstract, column 10, lines 20-30, column 4, lines 35-45, column 6, lines 15 to column 7, line 5), even when the overall article exposed to electroless plating solution (such as by immersion in plating solution) (note column 13, lines 15-50).
‘478 further describes how combined articles (fabrics) can be formed from a first precatalyzed fiber and a second non-catalytic polymer fiber provided, where electroless plating to the combined article (fabric) would be provided, but the plating would only deposit on the catalyzed fiber (metal will not deposit or grow where the catalyst not provided) to allow partially metallized fabrics (note pages 2-4, translation, and Examples 3-4 pages 5-6, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify ‘755 in view of Costella, Dagger and Henderson to specifically provide the selective metal electroless plating of the initiator/metal doped portion of the hybrid network of fibers occurs before the removal of the non-metal doped fibers as suggested by Cleveland and ‘478 with an expectation of providing a desired porous polymer network that is also metal plated, since ‘755 wants to provide plating on a network of metal doped fibers, where the metal doping is indicated as allowing the plating, and Dagger further indicates how more porous polymer structures can be made by simultaneously depositing doped polymer fibers and non-doped polymer fibers, which would give a hybrid network of fibers, where the non-doped fibers are removed to give a porous network of what can be the doped fibers, where as to when the plating should occur to the doped polymer fibers, as noted by In re Burhans, 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, and ‘755 would indicate that the metal doping would allow for the plating, so the non-doped fibers would be considered not electrolessly plateable as provided, and Cleveland indicates that when providing an article with electrolessly plateable polymer parts and non-electrolessly plateable polymer parts, it is known that electroless plating can be then provided to the article containing both polymer parts, and the plating/metallization is only applied to the plateable polymer parts, and ‘478 would further indicate that articles made from prectalyzed fibers and noncatalytic fibers can be formed, and electroless plating provided, where the plating would only apply to the catalyzed fibers, and thus it would be expected that the desired electroless plating of ‘755 can be provided to the hybrid network of fibers, such that the plating is only applied to the metal doped fiber portion either before or after the non-metal doped fibers removed as desired by Dagger to provide a more porous structure.
Claim 2: as the initiator as a metal dopant, this is suggested by ‘755 as discussed for claim 1, and note page 5 of the translation as well, as to metal particles that can be used.
Claim 4: as to the initiator/dopant as a metal chelator, ‘755 further notes that the first polymer mixture can further have a hyperbranched polymer (abstract), where the hyperbranched polymer and metal fine particles can form a composite bond forming a complex (note page 5, translation), such that this hyperbranched polymer can be considered as acting as a metal chelator (complexing agent) dopant.
Claim 5: as discussed for claim 1 above, the initiator/mixture can be a metal doped polymer solution, and further when providing this the “initiator” can be considered predictably and acceptably as a polymer solution that contains the metal dopant as any part of the polymer solution/mixture used to form the first polymer mixture along with the metal particles, since In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) provides that Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious, and therefore the first polymer mixture can be considered as part of the first polymer mixture of resin/polymer/solvent and the additional part of the initiator can be considered further resin/polymer/solvent and metal fine particles (note ‘755, translation, page 6), that is mixed together to form the first polymer mixture with initiator with an expectation of predictably acceptable results.
Claim 6: as discussed for claim 1 above, the second fibers that have not been initiator/metal doped will be removed (where the rejection discusses how the fibers that have not been metal doped can be removed before the plating, or optionally, after the plating) from the hybrid network. Note that the claims have no limit as to when the second fibers removed.
Claim 7:as to removing the second fibers that have not been initiator/metal doped by biodegrading, Dagger indicates this as an acceptable way to remove polymer material (note 0032-0034), and thus by providing conditions to biodegrade the second fiber, this would be considered a predictably acceptable way to remove a polymer fiber.
Claim 8: as to removing the second fibers that have not been initiator/metal doped by dissolving, Dagger indicates this as an acceptable way to remove the second fiber (note 0042).
Claim 12: as to providing that the first solution is copper doped, this would be suggested as acceptable by ‘755 (note page 5, translation as to metal particles usable).
Claim 13: as to the deposition providing electrospinning the first solution onto the collector, this would be suggested by ‘755 providing electrospinning, and Dagger and Henderson indicating the conventional electrospinning onto a collector/drum/mandrel as discussed for claims 1, 11 above, and note 0056.
Claim 14: as to providing the metal electroless plating to selectively metalize the metal doped fiber portion of the hybrid network of fibers using gold, ‘755 providing metallizing the metal doped fibers with gold (note page 7, translation, with the use of gold electroless plating solution), where the selective metallizing would be suggested as discussed for claims 1, 11 above. Costella also notes coating with gold (note 0017).
Claim 15: as to the depositing of the second solution onto the collector further comprises depositing this solution to create a structure for support for the metal-doped fibers/first fibers, as indicated by Dagger the deposition of first and second solutions simultaneously can create a homogeneous distribution of the first and second polymer fibers in the scaffold/mat/network (note 0022). Therefore, the second fiber formed can also be considered as creating a structure for the supporting the first fiber, for example, since if the second fiber not present, the first solutions/fibers could deposit in areas where the second fiber present, and the first fiber would also be supported by the second fiber in the overall mix of fibers.
Claim 16: the resulting homogeneous build up as discussed for claim 15 would also be considered as the second polymer solution creating a second fiber structure that directs fluids toward the first metal doped fibers, because the second fibers fill an area were first fibers not present, but there is a homogeneous application, so flow that would occur of new material can be directed to at least some degree to flow to the first/metal doped fibers. Furthermore, when the second fibers removed, this can also create structures (more/bigger pores) that would direct fluid of plating to the metal doped fibers (since openings that would allow flow), and this can be considered as provided due to the fiber deposition.
Claim 17: As discussed for claims 1, 11 above, the fibers that have not been metal doped/created from the second solution will be removed (where the rejection discusses how the fibers that have not been metal doped can be removed before the plating, or optionally, after the plating). Note that the claims have no limit as to when the fibers removed.
Claim 18: as to removing the fibers that have not been metal doped/created from the second solution by biodegrading, Dagger indicates this as an acceptable way to remove the polymer material (note 0032-0034), and thus by providing conditions to biodegrade the second fiber, this would be considered a predictably acceptable way to remove a polymer fiber.
Claims 19, 20: as to the deposition providing electrospinning the first solution (claim 20) and second solution (claims 19, 20) onto the collector, ‘755 would suggest depositing the first solution by electrospinng as discussed for claims 1, 11 above, and Dagger and Henderson would further suggest depositing both the first and second solutions by electrospinning (note Dagger at 0071-0073, 0016, and Henderson at 0007, 0056) and further Dagger and Henderson would suggest the conventional electrospinning onto a collector/drum/mandrel as discussed for claims 1, 11 above and note Henderson at 0056, giving the suggestion of using a collector/target surface.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘755 in view of Costella, Dagger and Henderson, EITHER alone OR further in view of Cleveland and ‘478 as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8 and 11-20 above, and further in view of Beane et al (US 5453293).
Claim 3: As to providing the electroless plating initiator as a metalloid, such as boron, ‘755 notes using metal particles, such as Pd or Co (page 5, translation), and where the metal plated can be copper (note page 7, translation).
Beane describes electroless plating copper on a particle with an underlying coating 68 that can contain catalyst for the copper plating, where the catalyst can be Pd or boron, and the catalyst can be codeposited with other metal (cobalt, tungsten) (note column 9, lines 1-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify ‘755 in view of Costella, Dagger and Henderson, EITHER alone OR further in view of Cleveland and ‘478 to further provide deposition of boron as an electroless plating initiator as suggested by Beane with an expectation of predictably acceptable results since ‘755 indicates depositing metal plating initiator such as Pd or Co, and plating of copper, and Beane indicates that boron can be used before electroless plating copper as an initiator/catalyst, and thus could replace Pd, or can be used with Co with an expectation of predictably acceptable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘755 in view of Costella, Dagger and Henderson, EITHER alone OR further in view of Cleveland and ‘478 as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8 and 11-20 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 2011/0120866).
Claim 9: As to providing the second/non-metal doped fibers are semiconductors, ‘755 notes that its process can be used for making sensor electrodes (note page 3, translation).
Lee indicates that when providing electrospun fibers from polymers, it is commonly known that with the addition of semiconductor, semiconductor fibers can be formed, with desirable use for sensors in contact with metal electrodes (note 0019-0020, 0032, 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify ‘755 in view of Costella, Dagger and Henderson, EITHER alone OR further in view of Cleveland and ‘478 to further provide that the metallized fibers act as sensor electrodes and the second/non-metal doped fibers are provided as semiconductors from the second polymer solution/mixture, and are retained as suggested by Lee with an expectation of predictably acceptable results since ‘755 indicates how sensor electrodes can be formed using the metallized fibers, and when depositing the second fibers as described by Dagger, when these fibers in the form of semiconductors as described by Lee, they would be in contact with the metal electrode material and act as semiconductor fibers a desired by Lee for sensor use, and the metallized coating not expected to deposit on the semiconductor fibers because no electroless plating initializer present, and when using Cleveland and ‘478, it is further discussed why plating can occur only on the metal doped fibers even when other fibers/polymer present, and the materials used are suggested to be biocompatible as discussed for claim 1 above, so usable for biomaterial electrodes as described for Costella as to claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘755 in view of Costella, Dagger and Henderson, EITHER alone OR further in view of Cleveland and ‘478 as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8 and 11-20 above, and further in view of Shin et al (US 2017/0288180).
Claim 10: As to providing the second/non-metal doped fibers are conducting polymers, ‘755 notes that polystyrene can be used as polymer for the polymer solution for the electrospinning (note page 3, translation).
Shin indicates that a conductive Velcro unit can be provided by providing a combination of conductive polymer fibers and metal fibers or polymer fibers coated with a metallization layer, where metal fiber material can be gold, copper, etc. (note 0051). Conductive polymers can be polystyrene, polythiophene, polyaniline, etc. (note 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify ‘755 in view of Costella, Dagger and Henderson, EITHER alone OR further in view of Cleveland and ‘478 to further provide that the second/non-doped fibers can be conducting/conductive and optionally retained as suggested by Shin with an expectation of predictably acceptable results since ‘755 indicates how polystyrene can be electrospun, so if used as the second fiber without metal doping would be predictably and acceptably electrospun and removed, where Shin would indicate polystyrene as forming conductive fibers, or alternatively Shin would also indicated how the polystyrene could be retained, and along with the metallized fibers could be used to form a conductive Velcro device, and the metallized coating not expected to deposit on the polystyrene fibers that are not metal doped because no electroless plating initializer present, since ‘755 indicates providing the initiator with such fibers for plating to occur, and when using Cleveland, it is further discussed why plating can occur only on the metal doped fibers even when other fibers/polymer present, and such a device can also be used for biomaterial purposes, if used in contact with a person, for example.
Johnson (US 2018/0221537) notes how when providing a first polymer solution and a second polymer solution used in a separate polymer injection system at substantially the same time by electrospinning to produce first fiber from the first solution interspersed with second fibers from the second solution, such process can be described as co-spinning or co-electrospinning (note 0029).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
(A) Note the adjustments to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims, including the new 35 USC 112 rejections. Also note the new optional use of Japan 61-102478.
(B) As to the 35 USC rejections using ‘755 (Shimada) in view of Dagger and Pintauro, and optionally, Cleveland and ‘478, it is argued that ‘755 does not provide the creation of a composite metal/non-metal mesh of co-spun fibers or form selective metallization. It is argued that Costella provides conductive traces indiscriminately cutting a swath across the entirety of the electropunk mass and does not selectively metallize on group of fibers, while leaving other groups non-metallized, or how selective plating could be formed. It is argued that Dagger provides forming first and second fibers, but not metallizing either set, or how selective metallization would be provided. It is argued that there is no motivation to combine the references, where Costella’s attempt to eschew the electrospinning approach to making the mats of ‘755 and Dagger with its semiconductor based fabrication approach would change the principle of operation , and so the combination of references used cannot be used to render obvious to the present set of claims.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. While ‘755 does not provide the use of the second, non-initiated fibers and selective metallization, the additional references are provided as to the suggestion to provide the features as claimed. As to the use of Costella, it shows the desire to use metal coated electrospun fiber mats for biomedical applications. While the same selective deposition process as claimed is not described, it still shows desired use of nanofiber material. Costella would not teach against the use of the processes in ‘755 and Dagger, for example, because while it describes some deposition processes, it also teaches the desire for electrode material made from nanofiber mats for biocompatible uses, which would give a suggested use for the material of ‘755 as well. Even if Costella does not teach the co-spinning with removal, ‘755 indicates how the fiber networks/mats would be desirably light and flexible, and Dagger shows how such mats can be provided with controlled porosity. Dagger also teaches using biocompatible materials, and Dagger provides the benefits of allowing controlled porosity for the resulting network of fibers through the use of the second fiber application as discussed in the rejection. The primary reference to ‘755 as discussed in the rejection above notes the desire to form metal plated fiber networks/mats that are light and flexible, and Dagger would show how to make more porous fiber mats/scaffolds/networks, which would provide for reduced weight. Thus, even though Dagger is not metallizing the fiber network produced, it still shows how to make a fiber network with desirable porosity, which would be of interest to, and a desirable modification for ‘755, which can still provide the resulting metallization of the metallized fibers, and where Dagger in the end, removes the second fibers, further giving a network of material to be metallized as desired by ‘755. Thus, Dagger is a pertinent and relevant reference. While Dagger removes the second fibers, there is clearly an initial hybrid network of the first and second fibers deposited, since the second fibers are removed after the depositing of both sets of fibers (note 0022, 0024, 0077). Thus, the features of what are actually claimed are provided. Cleveland and ‘478 are provided as to the further optional suggestion that the removal of the second fibers can occur after the plating. As to the motivation to combine the references, Costella indicates pertinent and relevant materials to use and uses for electrodes, etc. formed from electrospun fiber mats, which is pertinent and relevant to ‘755, which similarly is providing electrospun fiber material that can be used for electrodes, and Dagger is also pertinent and relevant to ‘755 as discussed above. As to Costello eschewing the electrospinning approach to forming mats, it is specifically directed to forming electrospun fiber mats (note 0008). While it does not use the removal of fibers as suggested by Dagger to give further porosity, this is not taught against by Costella, where there is to be metallization of fibers of the mat. As worded, it would not even be prevented that a “swath” is plated, as long as the first fibers are also selectively plated rather than second fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights