DETAILED ACTION
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.
This application is 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 and 7-8, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sungkyunkwan University (KR 10-2325518 B1) in view of Iwamoto (JP 2011176076 A) and Ooishi et al. (US 2012/0114938 A1).
Pertaining to claim 1, Sungkyunkwan University discloses, A degradable substrate for an electronic device, the degradable substrate comprising: a substrate base material which is a polymer material (see paragraph [0006] and [0073]).
But, Sungkyunkwan University does not explicitly teach degradable foam-generating material which is provided in a form of particles while being uniformly mixed with the substrate base material and generates foam by reacting with water. Sungkyunkwan also fails to teach a substrate base material as a plasticizer.
However, Iwamoto teaches degradable foam-generating material which is provided in a form of particles while being uniformly mixed with the substrate base material and generates foam by reacting with water. (Iwamoto teaches wherein a wiring board includes an insulating material, a wiring formed on the insulating material, and a release layer formed between the insulating material and the wiring and containing metal carbonate or metal hydrogen carbonate, and the metal carbonates or metal bicarbonates are thermally decomposed and produce carbon dioxide (see chapter [0007]). Ooishi et al. also teaches a substrate base material as a plasticizer, (see Abstract).
Therefore, At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a degradable foam-generating material which is provided in a form of particles while being uniformly mixed with the substrate base material and generates foam by reacting with water in the device of Sungkyunkwan University based on the teachings of
Iwamoto in order to offers significant advantages in environmental sustainability, processing efficiency, and functional customization and Ooishi et al. also provide a substrate base material as a plasticizer in order to enhanced material permanence, eliminated chemical migration, superior environmental safety and increase flexibility.
Pertaining to claim 2, Sungkyunkwan University discloses, wherein the substrate base material is one of gelatin, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), (see paragraph [0018]).
Pertaining to claim 7, Sungkyunkwan University discloses all claimed limitations except, wherein the substrate base material and the degradable foam-generating material have a weight ratio in a range of 4:1 to 1:2.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the substrate base material and the degradable foam-generating material have a weight ratio in a range of 4:1 to 1:2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Pertaining to claim 8, Sungkyunkwan University discloses, further comprising a plasticizer, wherein the substrate base material is gelatin (see paragraph [0018]).
Pertaining to claim 14, Sungkyunkwan University discloses, A degradable substrate for an electronic device, the degradable substrate comprising: a substrate base material which is a polymer material (see paragraph [0006] and [0073]).
But, Sungkyunkwan University does not explicitly teach a degradable foam-generating material which is provided in a form of particles while being uniformly mixed with the substrate base material and generates foam-genarating material are mixed. Sungkyunkwan also fails to teach a substrate base material as a plasticizer.
However, Iwamoto teaches a degradable foam-generating material which is provided in a form of particles while being uniformly mixed with the substrate base material and generates foam-generating material are mixed. (Iwamoto teaches wherein a wiring board includes an insulating material, a wiring formed on the insulating material, and a release layer formed between the insulating material and the wiring and containing metal carbonate or metal hydrogen carbonate, and the metal carbonates or metal bicarbonates are thermally decomposed and produce carbon dioxide (see chapter [0007]). Ooishi et al. also teaches a substrate base material as a plasticizer.
Therefore, At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a degradable foam-generating material which is provided in a form of particles while being uniformly mixed with the substrate base material and generates foam by reacting with water in the device of Sungkyunkwan University based on the teachings of
Iwamoto in order to offers significant advantages in environmental sustainability, processing efficiency, and functional customization, and Ooishi et al. also provide a substrate base material as a plasticizer in the device of Sungkyunkwan University in order to enhanced material permanence, eliminated chemical migration, superior environmental safety and increase flexibility.
Pertaining to claim 15, Sungkyunkwan University discloses, wherein the substrate base material is a polymer material, (see paragraph [0006] and [0073]).
Pertaining to claim 16, Sungkyunkwan University discloses all claimed limitation except, wherein the degradable foam-generating material is formed of organic acid and hydrogen carbonate.
However, Okada teaches wherein the degradable foam-generating material is formed of organic acid and hydrogen carbonate (claim 3).
Therefore, At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the degradable foam- generating material is formed of organic acid and hydrogen carbonate in the device of Sungkyunkwan University based on the teachings of Okada in order to offer significant advantages in environmental sustainability, safety, and production efficiency compared to traditional petroleum-based foams.
Pertaining to claim 17, Sungkyunkwan University discloses, wherein the degradable foam-generating material is pulverized, and is mixed with the organic solvent (see paragraph [0025]).
Pertaining to claim 18, Sungkyunkwan University discloses all claimed limitations except, wherein the degradable foam-generating material is pulverized through ball-milling.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the degradable foam-generating material is pulverized through ball-milling, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for intended use for the purpose for creating eco-friendly, high-performance, and cost-effective foams. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Pertaining to claim 20, Sungkyunkwan University as modified by Ooishi further discloses wherein the plasticizer is glycerol, sorbitol, or a mixture thereof (see paragraph [0103]).
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sungkyunkwan University (KR 10-2325518 B1) in view of Iwamoto (JP 2011176076 A) and Ooishi et al. (US 2012/0114938 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okada (JP 2019183008 A).
Pertaining to claim 3, Sungkyunkwan University discloses all claimed limitation except, wherein the degradable foam-generating material is formed of organic acid and hydrogen carbonate.
However, Okada teaches wherein the degradable foam-generating material is formed of organic acid and hydrogen carbonate (claim 3).
Therefore, At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the degradable foam- generating material is formed of organic acid and hydrogen carbonate in the device of Sungkyunkwan University based on the teachings of Okada in order to offer significant advantages in environmental sustainability, safety, and production efficiency compared to traditional petroleum-based foams.
Pertaining to claim 4, Sungkyunkwan University as modified by Okada further discloses, wherein the organic acid is one of citric acid, malic acid, succinic acid, malonic acid, tartaric acid, and acetic acid, or a mixture thereof, (see paragraph [0018 of Okada]).
Pertaining to claim 6, Sungkyunkwan University discloses all claimed limitations except, wherein the degradable foam- generating material has a molar ratio of the organic acid and the hydrogen carbonate in a range of 1:1 to 1:3.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the degradable foam- generating material has a molar ratio of the organic acid and the hydrogen carbonate in a range of 1:1 to 1:3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sungkyunkwan University (KR 10-2325518 B1) in view of Iwamoto (JP 2011176076 A) and Ooishi et al. (US 2012/0114938 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Okada (JP 2019183008 A) and Han et al. (US 7,842,305 B2).
Pertaining to claim 5, Sungkyunkwan University discloses all claimed limitations except, wherein the hydrogen carbonate is one of sodium hydrogen carbonate and potassium hydrogen carbonate, or a mixture thereof.
However, wherein the hydrogen carbonate is one of sodium hydrogen carbonate and potassium hydrogen carbonate, or a mixture thereof, (see claim 7).
Therefore, At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide wherein the hydrogen carbonate is one of sodium hydrogen carbonate and potassium hydrogen carbonate, or a mixture thereof in the device of Sungkyunkwan University based on the teachings of Okada in order to effective pH buffering, rapid neutralization of acids, safety (non-toxic/eco-friendly), and, in potassium compounds, superior solubility and reduced sodium intake.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 14-18 and 20-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 12-13 and 19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 7, the specific limitations of "fluid path formation layer formed inside thereof with an inlet-side fluid path and an operation-side fluid path; and a pneumatic valve control layer located below the fluid path formation layer to allow the inlet-side fluid path and the operation-side fluid path to be connected to or separated from each other, wherein the fluid path formation layer is formed with an accommodation region at a location opposite to a region of the operation-side fluid path adjacent to the inlet-side fluid path, and the accommodation region is open upward so as to make contact with the degradable substrate for the electronic device, wherein the accommodation region is filled with a degradable foam-generating material that generates foam by reacting with water, and wherein, upon depressurization via the pneumatic valve control layer, the inlet-side fluid path and the operation-side fluid path are connected to supply water through the accommodation region to the degradable substrate, thereby enabling controlled on-demand degradation of the degradable substrate via foam generation.," in combination with the remaining elements, are not taught or adequately suggested by the prior art of record. Claim 12-13 and 19 depend from claim 9 and is therefore allowed for at the same reasons
Conclusion
8. 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 ANDARGIE M AYCHILLHUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/ANDARGIE M AYCHILLHUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights