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 .
Claim Status
In response to an Election/Restriction filed on 08/10/2026, group II:
claim 22 has been withdrawn; and
group I: claims 12-21 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein the solvent is dimethylformamide”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan et al (attached research article [Hassan.pdf]) hereinafter Hassan, in view of Luo et at (C.N. Patent Application Publication 106883586 A) hereinafter Luo, in view of Guo et al (C.N. Patent Application Publication 110643049 A) hereinafter Guo, an further in view of Tai et al (C.N. Patent Application Publication 111504527 A) hereinafter Tai.
Regarding claim 12, Hassan discloses (Title: Ink-jet printed stretchable strain sensor based on graphene/ZnO composite on micro-random ridged PDMS substrate) a process for fabricating a flexible strain and pressure sensor (strain sensors, ¶Abstract) based on ZnO nanoparticles-graphene nanoplatelets (graphene flakes/ZnO composite, ¶Abstract), the process comprising:
(a) mixing a synergistic mixture of ZnO nanoparticles (ZnO nano particles, ¶Abstract) having a particle size distribution from 43.8 nm to 712 nm (col. 3, ll. 12, “ZnO with size of <15 nm) and graphene nanoplatelets (graphene flakes, ¶Abstract) having a particle size range from 50.7 nm to 220 nm (col. 3. , ll. 11, “graphene flakes under 5 layers with average size of 100nm”) with N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone solvent (col. 4, ll. 7-8, “the graphene flakes and ZnO are well dispersed in NMP solvent);
(b) masking a glass substrate (glass substrate, col. 5, ll. 5) with tape and exposing a section of the glass substrate at a center of the glass substrate (col. 5, ll. 4-5, “the wrinkled aluminum foil was attached to the glass substrate using a double-sided stick tape”);
(c) dispensing a ZnO nanoparticles-graphene nanoplatelets ink on the exposed section of the glass substrate with a micropipette (col. 4, ll. 9-10, “the ZnO nano particles… and graphene flakes are uniformly deposited);
(f) providing a polydimethyldisiloxane (PDMS) solution on the glass substrate containing the cured ZnO-graphene pattern and heating at 100 0C to form a cured PDMS layer (col. 5, ll. 9-11, “The casted PDMS was cured inside an oven at 100 °C for 60 min and then again brought to room temperature inside the oven”).
However, Hassan fails to disclose a process comprising:
(a) mixing a solvent with polyurethane;
(d) spin coating and curing the ZnO nanoparticles-graphene nanoplatelets ink and repeating the spin coating and curing three times;
(e) removing the tape from the glass substrate;
(f) spin coating the polydimethyldisiloxane (PDMS) solution;
(g) peeling the cured PDMS layer from the glass substrate to obtain an embedded sensing layer;
(h) flipping the cured PDMS layer and connecting copper terminals to the embedded sensing layer using silver epoxy; and
(i) pouring a final passivation layer of PDMS on the embedded sensing layer, followed by curing at 80 0C for 10 minutes.
Luo discloses (Title: A Hybrid Nano-conductive Material of Adjustable Strain Sensing Polymer) a process comprising:
(a) mixing a solvent with polyurethane (p. 6, ll. 1-3, “the high elastic polyurethan solution drop coated on the conductive film to remove the conductive film on the high elasticity polyurethane solution of the solvent to prepare a hybrid nano-conductive material of adjustable strain sensing polymer”);
Hassan discloses a process for fabricating a strain sensor based on a particular graphene flakes and ZnO composite mixture, the process comprising the steps of mixing the solution with NMP to be dispensed and serving as a sensing layer. Guo discloses a process of mixing a solvent along with polyurethane solution to be drop coated. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a solution comprising of the solvent and polyurethane solution of Luo with the mixture of Hassan to provide a surface with the polyurethane solution, removing a conductive film and to prepare a hybrid nano-conductive material for an adjustable strain sensing polymer (Luo, p. 6, ll. 1-3). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA as polyurethan is known to serve as a matrix, holding and providing support to particles such as graphene together and also allows for mechanical strain transfer/flexibility.
Guo discloses (Title: A Preparation Method of Naphthalene Diimide-based Metal Organic Frame Film and Its Application on the Hydrazine Detection) a process comprising:
(b) masking a glass substrate (FTO glass, p. 3, ll. 9) with tape (transparent adhesive tape, p. 3, ll. 10) and exposing a section of the glass substrate at a center of the glass substrate (p. 3, ll. 9-11, “ the FTO glass middle part leaving the 1*1cm2 area used for spin coating the nanometer zinc oxide solution”);
(d) spin coating and curing the ZnO nanoparticles-graphene nanoplatelets ink (p. 3, ll. 12-13, “zinc oxide solution spin-coating”) and repeating the spin coating and curing three times (p. 3, ll. 14-15, “the spin coating nanometer zinc oxide solution for two times”); and
(e) removing the tape from the glass substrate (p. 3, ll. 16-17, “removing the transparent adhesive tape”);
Hassan, in view of Luo, discloses a process for fabricating a strain sensor based on a particular graphene flakes and ZnO composite mixture, the process comprising the steps of mixing the solution, masking a glass substrate with tape, and dispensing the mixture onto the surface. Guo discloses a process of masking a glass substrate with an adhesive tape to create a 1*1 cm2 area used for spin coating, multiple applications of spin coating a ZnO solution, and later removing the adhesive tape. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the steps of Guo into the process of Hassan, IVO Luo, as utilizing the multiple spin coats and removal of adhesive tape allows for provision of coating uniformity and clear definition of the deposited region without left over residue. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA as using the combined steps allows for efficiency in manufacturing a sensor, providing predictable and replicable pattern definition avoiding unnecessary steps of additional patterning/etching operations.
Tai discloses (Title: Bionic Pressure Sensor of Sea Urchin-shaped Oxide-based Composite Film and Preparation Method Thereof) a process comprising:
(f) spin coating a polydimethyldisiloxane (PDMS) solution on the glass substrate (p. 5, ll. 17-19, “spin-coating the PDMS mixed colloid on the acrylic plate”);
(g) peeling the cured PDMS layer from the glass substrate to obtain an embedded sensing layer (p. 5, ll. 20-21, “using tweezers to peel the PDMS from the acrylic plate surface, using UV plasma to process flexible substrate, the flexible substrate has hydrophilic characteristic”);
(h) flipping the cured PDMS layer and connecting copper terminals to the embedded sensing layer using silver epoxy (p. 5, ll. 35-36, “fixing the copper wire on the edge of the sea urchin-shaped zinc oxide-multi-wall carbon nano-tube composite film by the conductive silver paste”); and
(i) pouring a final passivation layer of PDMS on the embedded sensing layer (p. 5, ll. 37 - p. 6, ll. 1, “placing the two pieces of PDMS with the sea urchin-shaped zinc oxide-multi-wall carbon nano-tube composite film and the copper electrode face to face”), followed by curing (p. 5, ll. 33-34, “drying the PDMS covered with sea urchin-shaped zinc oxide-multi-wall carbon nano-tube composite film under the environment of 40 degrees centigrade for 12h”).
Hassan, in view of Luo and Guo, discloses a process for fabricating a strain sensor, providing a mixture and spin coating the mixture onto a glass substrate. Tai discloses a process of providing, via spin coating, of a PDMS solution onto a substrate, curing/peeling the PDMS layer to obtain a sensing layer, and embedding terminals into the structure. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the steps from Tai’s process and apply it to the process of Hassan, IVO Luo and Guo, to achieve a sea-urchin shaped zinc oxide structured sensor for a more conductive path, improving response in value and sensitivity (Tai, p. 6, ll. 16-36).
Tai discloses “taking out the cured PDMS from the oven, standing for 10min at room temperature to harden the PDMS film surface” (p. 5, ll. 16-17), thus suggesting that time and temperature, is a result-effective variable that would have been routinely optimized by a POSITA. A POSITA would have selected an appropriate temperature and time based on the particular material and composition to achieve desired properties of the sensor. Also, optimizations, such as film thickness, solvent removal, film morphology, microstructure/crystallinity, and electrical properties are all factors an operator may consider and have control upon the selected variation of the curing process).
Regarding claim 13, Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, and Tai, teaches the process of claim 12, as detailed above, and Hassan further discloses the ratio of ZnO to graphene in the synergistic mixture is from 0.5:1 to 1:0.5 (col. 4, ll. 1-3, “the graphene flakes and ZnO nanoparticles ratios of 1:0, 1:0.2, 1:0.5, 1:0.7, 1:1, 1:1.2, and 1:1.5 were dispersed”).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 12, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 13 in the manner of spin coating a mixture and PDMS onto a glass substrate).
Regarding claim 14, Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, and Tai, teaches the process of claim 12, as detailed above, and Hassan further discloses the ZnO nanoparticles having an average particle size of 207.1 nm (col. 3, ll. 12, “ZnO with size of <15 nm; A POSITA would have recognized that the particle size of ZnO is a result-effective variable such that the selection/modification would have yielded no more than predictable use of routine optimization, allowing an operator to achieve a desired sensing response of the sensor).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 12, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 14 in the manner of spin coating a mixture and PDMS onto a glass substrate).
Regarding claim 15, Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, and Tai, teaches the process of claim 12, as detailed above, and Hassan further discloses the graphene nanoplatelets having an average particle size of 105.2 nm (col. 3. , ll. 11, “graphene flakes under 5 layers with average size of 100nm”; A POSITA would have recognized that the flake size of graphene is a result-effective variable such that the selection/modification would have yielded no more than predictable use of routine optimization, allowing an operator to achieve a desired sensing response of the sensor).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 12, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 15 in the manner of spin coating a mixture and PDMS onto a glass substrate).
Regarding claim 16, Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, and Tai, teaches the process of claim 12, as detailed above, and Luo further discloses the solvent is dimethylformamide (p. 4, ll. 22, “the solvent of said organic solution is… N-dimethylformamide”).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 12, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 16 in the manner of spin coating a mixture and PDMS onto a glass substrate).
Regarding claim 17, Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, and Tai, teaches the process of claim 12, as detailed above, and Hassan further discloses the ZnO nanoparticles-graphene nanoplatelets ink having a viscosity from 14 mPa-s to 15 mPa-s (col. 4, ll. 4-5, “the viscosity of the blended dispersion was measured to be 15.12 – 18.03 mPa”; ”; A POSITA would have recognized that the viscosity of the ZnO-graphene mixture is a result-effective variable such that the selection/modification would have yielded no more than predictable use of routine optimization, allowing an operator to achieve a desired coating characteristic depending on the characteristic of the mixture to be spin coated. The operator would consider mixture characteristics such as particle size of ZnO and graphene, mixture uniformity, and adhesion as well as spin coating results such as coating thickness, coverage, and sensor sensitivity).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 12, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 17 in the manner of spin coating a mixture and PDMS onto a glass substrate).
Regarding claim 18, Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, and Tai, teaches the process of claim 12, as detailed above, and Tai further discloses the glass substrate and the passivation layer are a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) having an elastomeric base and a silicone curing agent in a weight ratio of 10:1 (p. 5, ll. 7, “silicon oil (PDMS)”; p. 5, ll. 12, “weighing PDMS main agent and PDMS curing agent according to the mass ratio of 10:1”).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 12, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 18 in the manner of spin coating a mixture and PDMS onto a glass substrate).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, Tai, and further in view of Kenry et al (W.O. Patent Application Publication 2016153429 A1 [translation]) hereinafter Kenry.
Regarding claim 19, Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, and Tai, teaches the process of claim 12, as detailed above.
However, all fail to further discloses the cured PDMS layer having a modulus value from 1.5 MPa to 2.5 MPa.
Kenry discloses (Title: A Resistive Microfluidic Pressure Sensor) a flexible strain and pressure sensor (pressure sensor, p. 11, ll. 14) having a PDMS with a modulus value from 1.5 MPa to 2.5 MPa (p. 11, ll. 18, “The PDMS had a… Young's modulus of 2 MPa”).
Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, and Tai discloses of a sensor that is spin coated with PDMS and cured to embed a sensing layer. Kenry discloses of a resistive microfluidic pressure sensor that also comprises of PDMS that has a Young’s modulus value of 2MPa. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the PDMS from Kenry’s and apply it to the sensor of Hassan, IVO Luo, Guo, and Tai, as an operator should consider the materials of sensors as they undergo extreme degree of deformation and conformability. The operator must select an appropriate material strength so as to prevent associated plastic deformation, fracture, and delamination of the sensor, leading to inaccurate test results (Kenry, p. 2, ll. 6-10).
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, Tai, and further in view of Yang et al (attached research article [Yang.pdf]) hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 20, Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, and Tai, teaches the process of claim 12, as detailed above,
However, all fail to further disclose the flexible strain and pressure sensor having a gauge factor of from 182.5 to 196 in a measurement range of 0.0 to 0.1 strain (mm/mm) with a linearity from 0.94 to 0.97.
Yang discloses (Title: Accurate Monitoring of Small Strain for Timbre Recognition via Ductile Fragmentation of Functionalized Graphene Multilayers) wherein a flexible strain and pressure sensor (flexible strain sensor, abstract ll. 2) has a gauge factor of from 182.5 to 196 (gauge factor ∼ 200, abstract ll. 14) in a measurement range of 0.0 to 0.1 strain (mm/mm) (strain range 0-2.5%, abstract ll. 15) with a linearity from 0.94 to 0.97 (adjusted R-square ∼ 0.99936, abstract ll. 14).
The combination of Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, and Tai, teaches the sensor based on a composition of ZnO nanoparticles, graphene nanoplatelets, and PDMS that is spin coated onto a glass substrate. Yang discloses a sensor wherein parameters of gauge factor, its measurement range, and respective linearity. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sensor of Hassan’s combination in view of the teaches of Yang as Yang demonstrates that graphene-based sensors, while having a similar composition, provides a specific sensitivity. In view of the similar graphene-based composition and known application of pressure sensing, a POSITA would have reasonable expectations that the performance characteristics of Yang can be obtained in Hassan’s sensor through routine optimization.
Although Yang teaches of a sensor that does not include ZnO, ZnO is a well-known functional sensing material and known to exhibit piezoelectric responses to mechanical deformation. Accordingly, a POSITA would have recognized ZnO as a suitable inorganic compound for contributing to the sensor’s performance, and the POSITA would have reason to retain ZnO of Hassan while adopting the teachings of Yang concerning the composition, parameters, etc. Such modification would have been obvious to try because the prior art provided known sensor materials for achieving a desired pressure response. Also, many parameters such as gauge factor, sensitivity, and linearity depends upon factors related to concentrations of sensing material, particle size, and morphology. Thus, values for each of these factors would have obtained varied sensor responses.
Claims 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, Tai, and further in view of Wang et al (attached research article [Wang.pdf]) hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 21, Hassan, in view of Luo, Guo, and Tai teaches the process of claim 12, as detailed above.
However, all further disclose the flexible strain and pressure sensor having a sensitivity from 1.7 x10-4/kPa to 8.7 x 10-4/kPa in a measurement range from 0 to 250 kPa with a linearity from 0.87 to 0.93.
Wang discloses (Title: Near-Linear Responsive and Wide-Range Pressure and Stretch Sensor Based on Hierarchical Graphene-Based Structures via Solvent-Free Preparation) wherein a flexible strain and pressure sensor (SFG sensor, p. 4, ll. 18) has a sensitivity from 1.7 x10-4/kPa to 8.7 x 10-4/kPa (5.014 × 10−4 kPa−1, p. 5, ll. 2) in a measurement range from 0 to 250 kPa (50-700 kPa, p. 4, ll. 25) with a linearity from 0.87 to 0.93 (high linearity, p. 5, ll. 1; near-linear response, p. 5, ll. 5).
(Regarding the rationale to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 20, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 21 in the manner of composition, arrangement, and morphology altering the parameters of gauge factor and sensitivity).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/E.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729
