DETAILED ACTION
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“controller device” in Claim 14
The generic placeholder is “controller device” and the functional language attributed the “controller device” includes: “is configured to communicate with a heater controller”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 11/28/2023.
Regarding the controller device, on Para. 0030, “The controller device may communicate the registered force with an external, connectable machine to control specific actions, such as powering a connected device to initiate movement, lighting, heating, and the like.”, where the controller device is construed to be a regular controller capable of communicating and powering connected devices
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viberg et al. (US 20200092991 A1, hereinafter Viberg).
Regarding claim 1, Viberg discloses a flexible force sensor (Para. 0012, “a flexible force-sensitive circuit package”) comprising:
a first flexible substrate (Para. 0079, “first base substrate layer 21”) including a first electrode printed with a conductive ink (Para. 0090, “Each of the first electrode 31a and the connection trace 42a, and the first electrode 31b and the connection trace 42b, form a first circuit connected with the first base substrate layer 21”, and Para. 0088, “The first electrode 31 and the second electrode 32, may be defined by the same conductive material 40 on the first base substrate layer 21”, and Para. 0086, “The conductive material 40 may include a variety of materials, with examples including flexible ink, piezoresistive ink, dielectrics traces, metal traces, composite materials, or a combination of the above.”);
a second flexible substrate (Para. 0079, “a second base substrate layer 22.”) including a second electrode printed with a conductive ink (Para. 0090, “Further conductive material 40 is added as conductor bridges 36a and 36b to the second base substrate layer 22.”) and overcoated with a conductive layer (Para. 0086, “The conductive material 40 may be combined in any manner or printed in layers. Combinations of different examples of the conductive material 40 with selected differing electrical and mechanical characteristics may be layered on top of one another. For example, a flexible ink may be printed on top of a metal trace.”, where the conductive material can be made from a variety of materials, Para. 0086, “he conductive material 40 may include a variety of materials, with examples including flexible ink, piezoresistive ink, dielectrics traces, metal traces, composite materials, or a combination of the above.”, where the conductive material can be in layers, where a conductor bridge could be printed using flexible ink and then another conductive material could be layered on top), wherein the first electrode and the conductive layer face each other and are separated by a gap having a separation distance (Para. 0012, “The first and second layers of the base substrate may be separated by a spacer, introducing a gap between the first and second layers of the base substrates and forming a chamber.”, where Fig. 5 shows that the electrodes 31a, 32a, 31b, and 32b on the first substrate 21 and the electrodes 36a and 36b on the second substrate 22 are separated by a gap),
wherein the flexible force sensor is configured to initiate an electrical signal upon compression of the first and second flexible substrates in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal extent of the force sensor (Para. 0023, “force-sensitive area includes a conductor bridge connected with the base substrate for providing electrical communication between the first electrode and the second electrode when the force is applied to the force-sensitive area.”).
Regarding claim 2, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses further comprising a control circuitry connected to the first and second electrodes, a transceiver, and a controller, wherein the control circuitry is configured to carry the electrical signal to the transceiver and communicate a registered force or change in resistance to the controller (Para. 0008, “A termination point may be deposited on or otherwise
connected with the base substrate. The termination point may include an input module for receiving an input of stimulus and communicating the input to an output interface for connecting to an external processor. The termination point may include an output module for receiving a command or other signal from an input interface, and sending a signal, carrying out a process or otherwise changing state based on the command or signal. The input module or output module may detect, or be actuated by, changes in an electrical property, of material in the sensor (e.g. resistance, capacitance, conductance, inductance, etc.).”, where termination point is connected to the force sensor, where the input module is construed as a control circuitry that is connected to the electrodes, where the output module is construed as the transceiver that receives the force sensor signals, where the processor is construed as being a controller through be able to implement machine readable instructions and where the processor receives the change in force from the output module, Para. 0136, “The machine-readable medium can contain various sets of instructions, code sequences, configuration information, or other data, which, when executed, cause a processor to perform steps in a method according to an embodiment of the disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 3, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the gap is maintained by a mesh fabric, a material frame formed by a polymer film comprising an opening in the region of the first and second electrodes, stand-off features, or any combination thereof (Para. 0013, “A dielectric compressible spacer patterned between the electrode such that open gaps between the electrode are created, providing a capacitive sensor.”, where the spacer is made from a dielectric where dielectrics include polymer films, the spacer also acts as a standoff for the first flexible substrate).
Regarding claim 6, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the first and second flexible substrates are bonded by a hot melt bonding film, pressure sensitive bonding film, pressure sensitive adhesive (Para. 0094, “The spacer 56 and the adhesive 55 may have a unitary construction and be prepared from one material (e.g. a plastic spacer with a compatible adhesive, etc.).”), or by sewing outside of the region comprising the first and second electrodes.
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.
Claims 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viberg et al. (US 20200092991 A1, hereinafter Viberg) in view of Liu et al. (CN 112834087 A, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 4, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, as set forth above.
Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the stand-off features are formed by beads of a silicone elastomer bonded to a surface of the conductive layer facing the first flexible electrode.
However, Liu discloses, in the similar field of force sensors (Abstract, “double-layer flexible pressure sensor”), where a standoff can be formed by a silicone elastomer (Page 3, Para. 1, “The double-layer type flexible pressure sensor, further comprising such a characteristic, flexible substrate is made of dimethyl silicone polymer, thermoplastic elastomer or silica gel.”, where beads of elastomers are a type of polymer), where the silicone elastomer is bonded to a conductive layer (Page 4, Para. 6 from end, “conductive layer 303, the lower conductive layer 301, to the sensitive structure layer 3 preparation is finished”, and Page 4, Para. 2 from end, “the sensitive structure layer is made of polydimethyl siloxane (PDMS), thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) or silica gel”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive layer and standoff in Viberg to have the standoff be made of beads of a silicone elastomer and connected to the conductive layer as taught by Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use the configuration of the standoff to increase the sensitivity of the sensor, as stated by Liu, Page 3, Para. 3 from end, “the upper and lower respectively of the sensitive structure layer in the invention has a first micro-nano structure with small height and a second micro-nano structure with relatively large height, which makes the first micro-nano structure with small external force and less height effect, so as to cause the change of the electric signal, so as to realize the high sensitivity of the flexible sensor”.
Regarding claim 12, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the first flexible substrate and the second flexible substrate are individually selected from the group consisting of polyester, polyamides, spandex, nylon, Evolon®, elastane, cotton, cellulose, silk, wood, wool, leather, and blends thereof.
However, Liu discloses where the flexible substrates can be made from a type of polyester (Page 4, Para. 2 from end, “wherein the lower flexible substrate and the upper flexible substrate is made of polyethylene glycol terephthalate (PET), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) or polyimide (PI)”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the flexible substrates in Viberg to made from the material as taught by Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a material that allows conductive ink to be printed to and is still flexible, as stated Liu, Page 4, Para. 2 from end, “wherein the lower flexible substrate and the upper flexible substrate is made of polyethylene glycol terephthalate (PET), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) or polyimide (PI)”, and Page 5, Para. 5, “using screen printing technique to print the carbon nano-tube conductive ink on the PET substrate of 10mm * 10mm * 0.1mm, forming a layer of upper interdigital electrode layer”.
Claims 5 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viberg et al. (US 20200092991 A1, hereinafter Viberg) in view of Burghoorn et al. (EP 3726191 A1, hereinafter Burghoorn).
Regarding claim 5, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the separation distance is at least 10 microns.
However, Burghoorn discloses, in the similar field of force sensors (Abstract, “a pressure sensor”), where the separation distance is at least 10 microns (Para. 0025, “As described above the height "h" of the pocket defines the distance across the gap…In preferred embodiments, the height "h" of the pocket, is preferably in a range between 0.5 and 200 microns”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the separation distance in Viberg to be of the values as taught by Burghoorn.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to optimize the dimension of pocket created by the gap, where this prevents sagging of the elastomer carriers, as stated by Burghoorn, Para. 0025, “By optimizing the dimension of the pocket, e.g. by optimizing a thickness, shape, and/or dimension of the spacer sagging of the elastomeric carriers may be reduced and/or recovery after applied force may be improved.”.
Regarding claim 27, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the separation distance is at least 40 microns.
However, Burghoorn discloses where the separation distance is at least 40 microns (Para. 0025, “As described above the height "h" of the pocket defines the distance across the gap…In preferred embodiments, the height "h" of the pocket, is preferably in a range between 0.5 and 200 microns”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the separation distance in Viberg to be of the values as taught by Burghoorn.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to optimize the dimension of pocket created by the gap, where this prevents sagging of the elastomer carriers, as stated by Burghoorn, Para. 0025, “By optimizing the dimension of the pocket, e.g. by optimizing a thickness, shape, and/or dimension of the spacer sagging of the elastomeric carriers may be reduced and/or recovery after applied force may be improved.”.
Regarding claim 28, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the separation distance is at least 100 microns.
However, Burghoorn discloses where the separation distance is at least 100 microns (Para. 0025, “As described above the height "h" of the pocket defines the distance across the gap…In preferred embodiments, the height "h" of the pocket, is preferably in a range between 0.5 and 200 microns”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the separation distance in Viberg to be of the values as taught by Burghoorn.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to optimize the dimension of pocket created by the gap, where this prevents sagging of the elastomer carriers, as stated by Burghoorn, Para. 0025, “By optimizing the dimension of the pocket, e.g. by optimizing a thickness, shape, and/or dimension of the spacer sagging of the elastomeric carriers may be reduced and/or recovery after applied force may be improved.”.
Claims 7-10, 13, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viberg et al. (US 20200092991 A1, hereinafter Viberg) in view of Gwengo et al. (US 20190249026 A1, hereinafter Gwengo).
Regarding claim 7, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the conductive ink of the second electrode comprises: a particle-free metal complex composition comprising: at least one metal complex comprising: at least one metal, at least one first ligand that is a sigma donor to the metal and volatilizes upon heating the metal complex, and at least one second ligand that is different from the first ligand and volatilizes upon heating the metal complex; and
a solvent, wherein the metal complex has a solubility measured at 25°C of at least 250 mg/ml in the solvent, wherein the at least one metal, the at least one first ligand, and the at least one second ligand are provided in stoichiometric amounts in the conductive ink.
However, Gwengo discloses, in the similar field of conductive ink (Abstract, “conductive ink”), where the conductive ink includes a particle-free metal complex composition comprising a metal complex that includes a first ligand that is a sigma donor and volatilizes upon heating the complex and a second ligand that is different from the first ligand and volatilizes upon heating the complex (Para. 0015, “The particle-free conductive ink may comprise at least one metal complex dissolved in a solvent, wherein the at least one metal complex comprises at least one metal, at least one first ligand, and at least one second ligand.”, and Para. 0018, “According to certain aspects of the invention, the first and second ligands volatilize upon heat”), where there is a solvent (Para. 0058, “particle-free conductive inks of the present invention generally include a metal complex dissolved in a solvent.”) wherein the metal complex has a solubility measured at 25°C of at least 250 mg/ml in the solvent (Para. 0069, “The metal complexes described herein may have a solubility in at least one polar protic solvent at 25° C. of at least 50 mg/ml, or at least 100 mg/ml, or at least 150 mg/ml, or at least 200 mg/ml, or at least 250 mg/ml, or at least 300 mg/ml, or at least 400 mg/ml, or at least 500 mg/ml, or at least 1,000 mg/ml, or at least 1,500 mg/ml, or even or at least 2,000 mg/ml.”), where the metal, first ligand, and second ligand are provided in stoichiometric amounts (Para. 0071, “Analysis of the conductive ink formulations, in either of the organic or polar protic solvent systems, has shown that the amounts of the metal, and first and second ligands, in the ink solutions are stoichiometric”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive ink in both the first and second electrodes in Viberg to include the features as taught by Gwengo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use ink that doesn’t have particles to clog nozzles of an inkjet device and where the ink is compatible with textiles that require high cure temperatures, as stated by Gwengo, Para. 0115, “Thus, the presently disclosed inks and methods provide a large advantage over the prior art inks shown in FIGS. 4A-4E, wherein the particles of the ink may clog the nozzles of an inkjet device, and traces formed using the inks are generally non-conductive (i.e., show very high sheet resistance) and non-compatible with many textiles as they require high cure temperatures.”.
Regarding claim 8, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the conductive ink of the first and second electrodes each comprise: a particle-free metal complex composition comprising: at least one metal complex comprising: at least one metal, at least one first ligand that is a sigma donor to the metal and volatilizes upon heating the metal complex, and at least one second ligand that is different from the first ligand and volatilizes upon heating the metal complex; and
a solvent, wherein the metal complex has a solubility measured at 25°C of at least 250 mg/ml in the solvent, wherein the at least one metal, the at least one first ligand, and the at least one second ligand are provided in stoichiometric amounts in the conductive ink.
However, Gwengo discloses, in the similar field of conductive ink (Abstract, “conductive ink”), where the conductive ink includes a particle-free metal complex composition comprising a metal complex that includes a first ligand that is a sigma donor and volatilizes upon heating the complex and a second ligand that is different from the first ligand and volatilizes upon heating the complex (Para. 0015, “The particle-free conductive ink may comprise at least one metal complex dissolved in a solvent, wherein the at least one metal complex comprises at least one metal, at least one first ligand, and at least one second ligand.”, and Para. 0018, “According to certain aspects of the invention, the first and second ligands volatilize upon heat”), where there is a solvent (Para. 0058, “particle-free conductive inks of the present invention generally include a metal complex dissolved in a solvent.”) wherein the metal complex has a solubility measured at 25°C of at least 250 mg/ml in the solvent (Para. 0069, “The metal complexes described herein may have a solubility in at least one polar protic solvent at 25° C. of at least 50 mg/ml, or at least 100 mg/ml, or at least 150 mg/ml, or at least 200 mg/ml, or at least 250 mg/ml, or at least 300 mg/ml, or at least 400 mg/ml, or at least 500 mg/ml, or at least 1,000 mg/ml, or at least 1,500 mg/ml, or even or at least 2,000 mg/ml.”), where the metal, first ligand, and second ligand are provided in stoichiometric amounts (Para. 0071, “Analysis of the conductive ink formulations, in either of the organic or polar protic solvent systems, has shown that the amounts of the metal, and first and second ligands, in the ink solutions are stoichiometric”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive ink in both the first and second electrodes in Viberg to include the features as taught by Gwengo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use ink that doesn’t have particles to clog nozzles of an inkjet device and where the ink is compatible with textiles that require high cure temperatures, as stated by Gwengo, Para. 0115, “Thus, the presently disclosed inks and methods provide a large advantage over the prior art inks shown in FIGS. 4A-4E, wherein the particles of the ink may clog the nozzles of an inkjet device, and traces formed using the inks are generally non-conductive (i.e., show very high sheet resistance) and non-compatible with many textiles as they require high cure temperatures.”.
Regarding claim 9, modified Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 7, as set forth above.
Modified Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the conductive ink forms nanoparticles on the flexible substrate after curing to form the conductive pattern.
However, Gwengo discloses where the conductive ink forms nanoparticles on a substrate after curing to form the conductive pattern (Para. 0174, “particle-free conductive ink conformally coats fibers of the textile; and curing the particle-free conductive ink in the at least one pattern to form at least one conductive pattern”, and Para. 0134, “These e-textiles include any textile having printed thereon at least one conductive trace or pattern using inks and/or methods disclosed herein.”, where the conductive trace after curing is a solid and would include nanoparticles, where the liquid ink used to create the conductive trace starts without nanoparticles and then after curing there would be particles as the liquid becomes a solid). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive ink in modified Viberg to include the features as taught by Gwengo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to cure the conductive ink so that a specific pattern can be formed, where this allows the ink to become a solid in a shape as desired by the user, as stated by Gwengo, Para. 0174, “particle-free conductive ink conformally coats fibers of the textile; and curing the particle-free conductive ink in the at least one pattern to form at least one conductive pattern”.
Regarding claim 10, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the conductive layer is printed with a conductive ink comprising a particle-free metal complex composition, a resistive carbon-based ink, a conductive paint, indium tin oxide (ITO), or a combination thereof.
However, Gwengo discloses where the conductive layer can be printed with a conductive ink comprising a particle-free metal complex composition (Para. 0106, “According to certain aspects of the present invention, the particle-free conductive inks of the present invention may be printed on textile substrates”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive layer in Viberg to made from particle-free conductive ink as taught by Gwengo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use ink that doesn’t have particles to clog nozzles of an inkjet device and where the ink is compatible with textiles that require high cure temperatures, as stated by Gwengo, Para. 0115, “Thus, the presently disclosed inks and methods provide a large advantage over the prior art inks shown in FIGS. 4A-4E, wherein the particles of the ink may clog the nozzles of an inkjet device, and traces formed using the inks are generally non-conductive (i.e., show very high sheet resistance) and non-compatible with many textiles as they require high cure temperatures.”.
Regarding claim 13, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the conductive ink conformally coats fibers of the flexible substrate.
However, Gwengo discloses where the conductive ink can conformally coat the fibers of the substrate (Para. 0061, “The conductive inks of the present invention are capable of conformally coating fibers of a textile substrate (see FIG. 4G).”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive ink and flexible substrate in Viberg to have the conductive ink conformally coat the fibers of the substrate as taught by Gwengo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of the conformal coating of the conductive ink allowing for increased reliability for the electrode or conductive trace being formed, as stated by Gwengo, Para. 0056, “Moreover, the methods disclosed herein provide conformal coating of the particle-free ink on the textile fibers (FIG. 4G) that allows for greatly improved conductivity and longevity of the conductive trace”.
Regarding claim 29, modified Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above.
Modified Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the conductive ink forms nanoparticles on the flexible substrate after curing to form the conductive pattern.
However, Gwengo discloses where the conductive ink forms nanoparticles on a substrate after curing to form the conductive pattern (Para. 0174, “particle-free conductive ink conformally coats fibers of the textile; and curing the particle-free conductive ink in the at least one pattern to form at least one conductive pattern”, and Para. 0134, “These e-textiles include any textile having printed thereon at least one conductive trace or pattern using inks and/or methods disclosed herein.”, where the conductive trace after curing is a solid and would include nanoparticles, where the liquid ink used to create the conductive trace starts without nanoparticles and then after curing there would be particles as the liquid becomes a solid). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive ink in modified Viberg to include the features as taught by Gwengo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to cure the conductive ink so that a specific pattern can be formed, where this allows the ink to become a solid in a shape as desired by the user, as stated by Gwengo, Para. 0174, “particle-free conductive ink conformally coats fibers of the textile; and curing the particle-free conductive ink in the at least one pattern to form at least one conductive pattern”.
Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viberg et al. (US 20200092991 A1, hereinafter Viberg) in view of Panat et al. (WO 2019152648 A1, hereinafter Panat).
Regarding claim 11, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the conductive layer comprises a poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS), a carbon nanotube-based thin film (CNT), a carbon-loaded thermoplastic polymer, a carbon-loaded silicone, a carbon-loaded polymeric foil, velostat, or any combination thereof.
However, Panat discloses, in the similar field of conductive coating layers (Para. 0076, “Another conductive material can be deposited over the exposed part of the conductive shank. The conductive material may be deposited only over the tip of the conductive shank”), where the conductive layer is made from a poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS) (Para. 0076, “Non-limiting examples of conductive material include silver, gold, platinum, PEDOT (poly(2,3-dihydrothieno[3,4- b][1,4]dioxane-5,7-diyl) or poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)), PEDOT-PSS (a poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate mixture), PEDOT-TMA (poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-tetramethacrylate copolymer), carbon black, or a conductive carbon allotrope, such as graphene, graphite, a fullerene, a carbon nanotube, or vitreous carbon.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive layer in Viberg to be made from the materials as taught by Panat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use a material that is biocompatible, where this can benefit a user in case there is a need for a human interaction with the materials of the sensor from Viberg, as stated by Panat, Para. 0076, “The conductive material may be a biocompatible material. Non-limiting examples…PEDOT-PSS”.
Claims 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viberg et al. (US 20200092991 A1, hereinafter Viberg) in view of Gwengo et al. (US 20190249026 A1, hereinafter Gwengo) and Beska et al. (WO 2018224889 A2, hereinafter Beska).
Regarding claim 14, Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses a force sensor according to claim 1 (Para. 0012, “a flexible force-sensitive circuit package”).
Viberg does not disclose:
a force sensor controlled resistive heater comprising: a resistive heater comprising: a first flexible substrate having at least one conductive pattern printed thereon with a third conductive ink and configured to carry a current and generate heat, and at least one bus printed with the conductive ink, the bus electrically connected to the at least one conductive pattern and configured to provide connection to a power source; and
a control circuitry connected to the at least one electrode of the force sensor and configured to carry the electrical signal from the force sensor to a controller, wherein the controller device is configured to communicate with a heater controller to control supply of power from the power source to the resistive heater based at least in part on the electrical signal from the force sensor.
However, Gwengo discloses where the force sensor can include a resistive heater with a flexible substrate having a conductive pattern printed on with a conductive ink and configured to carry a current and generate heat with a bus printed in conductive ink connected to the conductive pattern and providing connection to a power source (Para. 0134, “As such, the conductive patterns on the e-textiles may be formed as a trace or pattern that may provide a sensor ( e.g., optical, thermal, humidity, gas, pressure, acceleration, strain, force, and proximity), a conductor, an electrode, a circuit, an interconnect, a light, an antenna, a resistive heating element, a switch, a transparent conductive element, a battery, or any combination thereof.”, where on a substrate or e-textile, a force sensor and a resistive heating element can be provided with conductive ink, Para. 0142, “conductive inks may be used to print resistive heating elements on a textile.”, where the substrate can be flexible, Para. 0050, “flexible energy storage devices, heating elements”, where the resistive heating element can carry current and generate heat, Para. 0146, “resistive heaters may be configured to carry a power density of less than 400 watts/m2”, where the conductive ink can include a bus that connects to a power source, Para. 0134, “These e-textiles include any textile having printed thereon at least one conductive trace or pattern using inks and/or methods disclosed herein. The traces may terminate in contact pads or connectors for connection to a current, such as a power supply or battery.”, where Fig. 17A and 17B show that the conductive ink forms a resistive heating element in the zigzagging shape in the middle, where the heating element terminates with a square that is the bus). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the force sensor in Viberg to include the resistive heating element as taught by Gwengo
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to include multiple devices on a substrate, which can be beneficial in a range of different applications for a user, as stated by Gwengo, Para. 0050, “These e-textiles may find use in a range of different applications, including at least wearable sensors for fitness and health monitoring, gas sensors and filters for use in industrial applications, antimicrobial dressings for use in medical applications, flexible energy storage devices, heating elements, and communication devices.”.
Further, Beska discloses, in the similar field of force sensors (Para. 0020, “The passenger sensor may be a capacitive sensor, a pressure sensor”), where a control circuitry is connected to the force sensor and configured to carry electrical signals from the force sensor to a controller (Para. 0025, “The signal wires may function to provide an input from a user, a controller, a sensor, or a combination thereof to the electric control unit, the printed circuit board, a motor control unit, or a combination thereof. The signal wires may extend between a sensor and the electric control unit.”), where the controller device communicates with the heater controller to control the supply of power from the power source to the resistive heater based on the pressure sensor signal (Para. 0026, “The output pins may provide the power, signals, or both from the electric control unit to the thermal elements. The output pins may provide power to the thermal elements so that the thermal elements produce heat or cool. The output pins may provide signals from the user, a sensor, the motor control unit, or a combination thereof to one or more components of the thermal elements.”, where the output pins are construed to be a heater controller as they allow power to enter into the heating elements). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the force sensor and resistive heater in modified Viberg to have the feature of the force sensor controlling a resistive heater through a controller as taught by Beska.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use a force sensor to determine if a passenger is present in a car seat, where that can then activate a resistive heater to heat the car seat, where this can save a user time from manually activating a car seat heating function, as stated by Beska, Para. 0020, “The thermal element may be secured directly to the trim layer, the cushion (i.e., bun, back, or both) of the seat, or a combination of both. The thermal element may be used with or as a passenger sensor. The thermal element may function as a passenger sensor (e.g., the heater may both provide heat and sensing capabilities). The heater may be placed over and/or under a passenger senor. The passenger sensor may be any type of passenger sensor that senses the presence of a passenger.”.
Regarding claim 15, modified Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, as set forth above.
Modified Viberg does not disclose:
wherein at least a portion of the at least one conductive pattern of the resistive heater is over-coated with a protective dielectric coating.
However, Gwengo discloses where the conductive pattern of the resistive heater is over-coated with a protective dielectric coating (Para. 0134, “As such, the conductive patterns on the e-textiles may be formed as a trace or pattern that may provide a sensor ( e.g., optical, thermal, humidity, gas, pressure, acceleration, strain, force, and proximity), a conductor, an electrode, a circuit, an interconnect, a light, an antenna, a resistive heating element, a switch, a transparent conductive element, a battery, or any combination thereof.”, and Para. 0190, “Aspect 17: An e-textile comprising: a textile having at least one particle-free conductive trace printed thereon, wherein at least a portion of the at least one particle-free conductive trace is over-coated with a protective dielectric coating”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the resistive heater in modified Viberg to be overcoated with a protective dielectric as taught by Gwengo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing the resistive heater have a layer of protection, as stated by Gwengo, Claim 20, “at least a portion of the particle-free conductive pattern is over-coated with a protective dielectric coating,”.
Regarding claim 17, modified Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, as set forth above.
Modified Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the third conductive ink comprises: a particle-free metal complex composition comprising: at least one metal complex comprising: at least one metal, at least one first ligand that is a sigma donor to the metal and volatilizes upon heating the metal complex, and at least one second ligand that is different from the first ligand and volatilizes upon heating the metal complex; and
a solvent, wherein the metal complex has a solubility measured at 25°C of at least 250 mg/ml in the solvent, wherein the at least one metal, the at least one first ligand, and the at least one second ligand are provided in stoichiometric amounts in the third conductive ink, and wherein the conductive ink forms nanoparticles on the flexible substrate after curing to form the conductive pattern.
However, Gwengo discloses, in the similar field of conductive ink (Abstract, “conductive ink”), where the conductive ink includes a particle-free metal complex composition comprising a metal complex that includes a first ligand that is a sigma donor and volatilizes upon heating the complex and a second ligand that is different from the first ligand and volatilizes upon heating the complex (Para. 0015, “The particle-free conductive ink may comprise at least one metal complex dissolved in a solvent, wherein the at least one metal complex comprises at least one metal, at least one first ligand, and at least one second ligand.”, and Para. 0018, “According to certain aspects of the invention, the first and second ligands volatilize upon heat”), where there is a solvent (Para. 0058, “particle-free conductive inks of the present invention generally include a metal complex dissolved in a solvent.”) wherein the metal complex has a solubility measured at 25°C of at least 250 mg/ml in the solvent (Para. 0069, “The metal complexes described herein may have a solubility in at least one polar protic solvent at 25° C. of at least 50 mg/ml, or at least 100 mg/ml, or at least 150 mg/ml, or at least 200 mg/ml, or at least 250 mg/ml, or at least 300 mg/ml, or at least 400 mg/ml, or at least 500 mg/ml, or at least 1,000 mg/ml, or at least 1,500 mg/ml, or even or at least 2,000 mg/ml.”), where the metal, first ligand, and second ligand are provided in stoichiometric amounts (Para. 0071, “Analysis of the conductive ink formulations, in either of the organic or polar protic solvent systems, has shown that the amounts of the metal, and first and second ligands, in the ink solutions are stoichiometric”), where the conductive ink forms nanoparticles on a substrate after curing to form the conductive pattern (Para. 0174, “particle-free conductive ink conformally coats fibers of the textile; and curing the particle-free conductive ink in the at least one pattern to form at least one conductive pattern”, and Para. 0134, “These e-textiles include any textile having printed thereon at least one conductive trace or pattern using inks and/or methods disclosed herein.”, where the conductive trace after curing is a solid and would include nanoparticles, where the liquid ink used to create the conductive trace starts without nanoparticles and then after curing there would be particles as the liquid becomes a solid). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the third conductive ink that makes up the heating resistive element in modified Viberg to include the features as taught by Gwengo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use ink that doesn’t have particles to clog nozzles of an inkjet device and where the ink is compatible with textiles that require high cure temperatures, as stated by Gwengo, Para. 0115, “Thus, the presently disclosed inks and methods provide a large advantage over the prior art inks shown in FIGS. 4A-4E, wherein the particles of the ink may clog the nozzles of an inkjet device, and traces formed using the inks are generally non-conductive (i.e., show very high sheet resistance) and non-compatible with many textiles as they require high cure temperatures.”, and gain the advantage of being able to cure the conductive ink so that a specific pattern can be formed, where this allows the ink to become a solid in a shape as desired by the user, as stated by Gwengo, Para. 0174, “particle-free conductive ink conformally coats fibers of the textile; and curing the particle-free conductive ink in the at least one pattern to form at least one conductive pattern”.
Claims 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viberg et al. (US 20200092991 A1, hereinafter Viberg) in view of Gwengo et al. (US 20190249026 A1, hereinafter Gwengo) and Beska et al. (WO 2018224889 A2, hereinafter Beska) and Sohn et al. (US 20160293286 A1, hereinafter Sohn).
Regarding claim 26, modified Viberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, as set forth above.
Modified Viberg does not disclose:
wherein the third conductive ink comprises: 10-40 wt.% of the conductive filler material and the metal complex provided in a ratio of metal complex to conductive filler material of 50:50 to 99:1;
2-10 wt.% of an alcohol or amine;
2-15 wt.% of glycol;
10-25 wt.% of a conductive filler solubilizer; and
40-70 wt.% of water.
However, Gwengo discloses where the conductive ink can include 10-40 wt.% of the conductive filler material and the metal complex provided in a ratio of metal complex to conductive filler material of 50:50 to 99:1 (Para. 0068, “For example, the compositions may include up to 5 wt.% of a hydrogel and/or polymer, such as up to 4 wt. %, or up to 3 wt. %, or up to 2 wt.%, or up to 1 wt.%, or up to 0.5 wt.%, or up to 0.1 wt. %, or up to 0.05 wt. %. The compositions may include hydrogels and/or polymers at from 0.01 wt. % to 5 wt. %, such as 0.01 wt.% to 4 wt.%, or 0.01 wt.% to 3 wt.%, or 0.01 wt. % to 2 wt. %, or 0.01 wt. % to 1 wt. %. According to certain aspects, the polymer may be a conductive polymer”, and where the metal complex is shown in Table 2 to include 30 wt.%, where the ratio of metal complex to conductive polymer filler can be 0.30303 wt.% to make the ratio 99:1), 2-15 wt.% of glycol (Table 2, where Propylene glycol is 11 wt.%), 10-25 wt.% of a conductive filler solubilizer (Para. 0070, “amount of organic solvent in the conductive inks disclosed herein can be, for example, less than 30 wt. %, less than 20 wt. %, less than 10 wt. %, less than 5 wt. %, less than 3 wt. %, less than 1 wt. %, less than 0.1 wt.% or less than 0.01 wt.%.”), and 40-70 wt.% water (Table 2, where Water is 42 wt.%). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive ink in modified Viberg to include the wt.% values as taught by Gwengo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use ink that doesn’t have particles to clog nozzles of an inkjet device and where the ink is compatible with textiles that require high cure temperatures, as stated by Gwengo, Para. 0115, “Thus, the presently disclosed inks and methods provide a large advantage over the prior art inks shown in FIGS. 4A-4E, wherein the particles of the ink may clog the nozzles of an inkjet device, and traces formed using the inks are generally non-conductive (i.e., show very high sheet resistance) and non-compatible with many textiles as they require high cure temperatures.”.
Further, Sohn discloses, in the similar field of conductive inks (Para. 0099, “The conductive ink”), where an alcohol can be included in the solvents along with water and where the alcohol can then be made up of the remaining balance of materials already present within the conductive ink (Para. 0106, “The solvent may be, for example, a mixture of water and alcohol, wherein the alcohol may be, for example, methanol, ethanol, n-propyl alcohol, isopropyl alcohol, n-butanol, isobutanol, t-butanol, propylene glycol, propylene glycolmethylether, ethylene glycol, or a combination thereof. The solvent may be included in a balance amount other than the components and other solids.”, where the remaining balance when taking into consideration the values from Gwengo would fall between 2-10 wt.%). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the solvent composition in modified Viberg to include in the water an addition of alcohol as the remainder of the balance of weight as taught by Sohn.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to still use a solvent capable of dissolving conductive metal to create an ink, as stated by Sohn, Para. 0106, “The solvent may include a medium in which the conductive nanobodies 12a and the binder are dissolved and/or dispersed.”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
06/05/2026
Prosecution Insights