DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 (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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of claims 1-10 and 20-25 in the reply filed on 31 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 November 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations “a first electrode” and “a second electrode” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not descriptive enough.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites in lines 1-2 “A piezoelectric self-assembling monolayer device, comprising: a flexible biocompatible material of claim 1”, it should be changed to “A piezoelectric self-assembling monolayer device, comprising: the flexible biocompatible material of claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 20-21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20020090649).
Regarding independent claim 1, Chan et al. (e. g. see FIGURE 1, [0033], [0037], [0052], [0053], [0063], [0092], [0161], [0162]) discloses a flexible biocompatible material, comprising: an oligopeptide self-assembled monolayer ([0063] the electrodes preferably comprise either self-assembled monolayers or porous polymeric pads; [0123] the conductive oligomer) disposed/deposited on a first electrode (5); and a dielectric layer (4) disposed/deposited over and/or attached to the oligopeptide self-assembled monolayer (([0063] the electrodes preferably comprise either self-assembled monolayers or porous polymeric pads; [0123] the conductive oligomer) and the first electrode (5).
Regarding independent claim 2, Chan et al. (e. g. see FIGURE 1, [0033], [0037], [0052], [0053], [0063], [0092], [0161], [0162]) discloses a flexible biocompatible material, comprising: an oligopeptide self-assembled monolayer ([0063] the electrodes preferably comprise either self-assembled monolayers or porous polymeric pads; [0123] the conductive oligomer) disposed/deposited on a first printed circuit board ([0162] Patterned conductive electrodes 1 constructed on top of the second layer of insulative dielectric material 2 constitute the final layer of each addressable site in the device 9. Well structures 7 are fabricated from this device by conventional photolithography or laser drilling methods used in the semiconductor industry for PCB manufacturing); and a dielectric layer (4) disposed/deposited over and/or attached to the oligopeptide self-assembled monolayer ([0063] the electrodes preferably comprise either self-assembled monolayers or porous polymeric pads; [0123] the conductive oligomer) and the first printed circuit board (PCB).
Regarding independent claim 20, Chan et al. (e. g. see FIGURE 1, [0033], [0037], [0052], [0053], [0063], [0092], [0161], [0162]) discloses a force/touch sensor comprising: an oligopeptide self-assembled monolayer ([0063] the electrodes preferably comprise either self-assembled monolayers or porous polymeric pads; [0123] the conductive oligomer) disposed/deposited on an electrode (5) or a printed circuit board (PCB); and a dielectric layer (4) disposed/deposited over the oligopeptide self-assembled monolayer ([0063] the electrodes preferably comprise either self-assembled monolayers or porous polymeric pads; [0123] the conductive oligomer) and the electrode (5) or printed circuit board (PCB).
Regarding claim 3, Chan et al. (e. g. see FIGURE 1, [0033], [0037], [0052], [0053], [0063], [0092], [0161], [0162]) discloses the dielectric layer (4) comprises polyurethane, a polyurethane film or other suitable polymer or polymer film or a non-polymer material (polymeric pad).
Regarding claim 7 and claim 25, Chan et al. (e. g. see FIGURE 1, [0033], [0037], [0052], [0053], [0063], [0092], [0161], [0162]) discloses the oligopeptide self-assembled monolayer ([0063] the electrodes preferably comprise either self-assembled monolayers or porous polymeric pads; [0123] the conductive oligomer) is carboxylate terminated or amide terminated (isonicotinamide, polyacrylamide, sulfonamides, phosphoramide, procainamide, and disopyramide).
Regarding claim 8, Chan et al. (e. g. see FIGURE 1, [0033], [0037], [0052], [0053], [0161], [0162]) discloses a flexible biocompatible material having a second electrode (1) or second printed circuit board (PCB) sealed over or on top of the dielectric layer (4) (a top to form sealed channels of claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Chan et al. (e. g. see FIGURE 1, [0033], [0037], [0052], [0053], [0161], [0162]) discloses the dielectric layer is used to adhere or attach the second electrode (1) or second printed circuit board (PCB) to the oligopeptide self-assembled monolayer ([0063] the electrodes preferably comprise either self-assembled monolayers or porous polymeric pads; [0123] the conductive oligomer) and the first electrode (1) or first printed circuit board (PCB) and to seal the device from the atmosphere (a top to form sealed channels of claim 5).
Regarding claim 10 and claim 21, Chan et al. (e. g. see FIGURE 1, [0033], [0037], [0052], [0053], [0063], [0092], [0161], [0162]) discloses the dielectric layer (4) comprises polyurethane, a polyurethane film or other suitable polymer or polymer film or a non-polymer material (polymeric pad).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20020090649) in view of Clough et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20070004844).
Regarding claim 4 and claim 22, Chan et al. fails to disclose the dielectric layer has a thickness of about 40 µm.
Clough et al. (e. g. see [0041]) teaches the dielectric layer has a thickness of about 40 µm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the detection apparatus of Chan et al. to include “the dielectric layer has a thickness of about 40 µm” as taught by Clough et al. for the purpose of boosting electrical output and emulating biological voltage transmission.
Since Chan et al. and Clough et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (dielectric), the purpose disclosed by Clough et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Chan et al.
Regarding claim 5 and claim 23, Chan et al. fails to disclose the dielectric layer has a thickness of about 23 µm.
Clough et al. (e. g. see [0041]) teaches the dielectric layer has a thickness of about 25 µm, 36 µm and 40 µm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the detection apparatus of Chan et al. to include “the dielectric layer has a thickness of about 25 µm, 36 µm and 40 µm” as taught by Clough et al. for the purpose of boosting electrical output and emulating biological voltage transmission.
Though Clough et al. does not teach the dielectric layer has a thickness of about 23 µm, it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). By adjusting the thickness of the dielectric layer from about 25 µm, 36 µm and 40 µm to about 23 µm, a person having ordinary skill in the art obtains a better biological voltage transmission for his specific oligopeptide application.
Claims 6 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20020090649) in view of Hutchison et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9985197).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 24, Chan et al. fails to disclose the oligopeptide self-assembled monolayer is selected from the group of CA6, A6C, CA9, CA12, CA7, CA8, CA6F, CFA6, CA6Y, CYA6, and CA6X, where X is the unnatural amino acid cyanophenyl alanine.
Hutchison et al. (e. g. see claim 9, claim 14) teaches the oligopeptide self-assembled monolayer is selected from the group of CA6, A6C, CA9, CA12, CA7, CA8, CA6F, CFA6, CA6Y, CYA6, and CA6X, where X is the unnatural amino acid cyanophenyl alanine (claim 9: The piezoelectric material according to claim 1, wherein each of the oligopeptides making up the self-assembling monolayer has the amino acid sequence CAAAAAA (Seq. Id. No. 1).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the detection apparatus of Chan et al. to include “each of the oligopeptides making up the self-assembling monolayer has the amino acid sequence CAAAAAA” as taught by Hutchison et al. for the purpose of using the specific structural and chemical advantages of the group when forming a self-assembled monolayer. It is well known in the art that the amino acid sequence CAAAAAA includes “the group of CA6, A6C, CA9, CA12, CA7, CA8, CA6F, CFA6, CA6Y, CYA6, and CA6X, where X is the unnatural amino acid cyanophenyl alanine”. The group of Cysteine as claimed in claims 6 and 24 of Hutchison et al. is known for strong anchoring (anchoring the peptide firmly to the surface) and directional orientation (ensuring the peptide attaches in a specific head-to-tail orientation.)
Since Chan et al. and Hutchison et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (oligopeptides), the purpose disclosed by Hutchison et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Chan et al.
Examiner’s Note:
In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention.
For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected.
Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crooks et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5885753) discloses a self-assembled multilayer and in particular polymeric self-assembled multilayer that can be effectively produced from two or more self-assembled monolayers on a substrate where each of the self-assembled monolayers is produced for a block containing a first functional group and a second functional group where the second functional group is reacted with the first functional group.
Kamins et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20070254169) discloses structures including a substrate having a nano-patterned surface, and a self-assembled monolayer of an organic material on the nano-patterned surface.
Tran et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200008299) discloses a biodegradable system in a flexible electronic device. The biodegradable system includes a biodegradable substrate which can be a biodegradable paper or polymer. A biodegradable power source is printed or deposited above the substrate, and biodegradable processor and communication circuits are in turn formed on the substrate.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, DEDEI HAMMOND, can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
8 October 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights