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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4, 8-10, 13 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 17 November 2025 is acknowledged. Moreover, with respect to Species 3, the election encompassing Figures 9, 11 and 16 is also acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first layer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as "the first solid layer" which does proper antecedent basis and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claims 2-4, 8-10, 13 and 15-20 are included in this rejection based on their ultimate dependency from claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over an article titled “Universal assembly of liquid metal particles in polymers enables elastic printed circuit board” by Lee, et al (6 page submission on 22 February 2024) (hereinafter “Lee”).Regarding claims 1, 3 and 4 Lee teaches an elastic printed circuit board (E-PCB) (dielectric composite) which is a conductive framework used for the facile assembly of system-level stretchable electronics (abstract). Lee teaches the fabrication of a bi-layer E-PCB comprising a top layer and a bottom layer, where a liquid metal particle (LMP) network (LMPNET) (layer comprising a fluid material) is applied/encapsualted within a polymer matrix (page 5, middle column, 1st full paragraph; and page 2, Figures 1A, 1C, and 1D, including the descriptions thereof). Lee teaches the LMPNET is applied within two layers of hydrogel material (first solid layer and second solid layer each independently comprising a hydrogel) and provides a barrier to ions (Annotated Figure 4(F), shown below), which corresponds to a first layer of hydrogel material (first solid layer), a LMPNET material (ion barrier layer comprising a fluid material) on the first layer of hydrogel material (first solid layer), and a second layer of hydrogel material (second solid layer) on the LMPNET material (ion barrier layer) on a side opposite the first layer of hydrogel material (first solid layer), and the LMPNET material (ion barrier layer) is encapsulated by the first layer of hydrogel material (first solid layer), and the second layer of hydrogel material (second solid layer).
PNG
media_image1.png
261
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the dielectric composite, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the dielectric composite is ion impermeable, nanoparticle impermeable, or both, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Lee reference teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Lee teaches the polymers for the first solid layer and the second solid layer includes hydrogel (Annotated Figure 4(F), shown above, and Figures 4(C) and 4(D), including the descriptions thereof). Alternatively, each of the first solid layer and the second solid layer must necessarily be either the same or different as these two options encompass the entire range of possible materials. Similarly, Lee does not explicitly teach the first solid layer and the second solid layer are each independently selected from rigid or soft materials. However, the materials for each of the first solid layer and the second solid layer must necessarily be either rigid or soft (not rigid) as these two options encompass the entire range of possible stiffnesses. Regarding claims 8-10 In addition, Lee teaches the LMPNET material (ion barrier layer comprising a fluid material comprising a liquid metal) comprises Ga, Ga-In-Sn, Bi-In-Sn, etc. (Figure 4D, including the description thereof), which corresponds to the liquid metal comprises gallium, indium, tin, bismuth, or an alloy thereof.Regarding claim 13 In addition, Lee teaches the LMPNET material (ion barrier layer comprising a fluid material) is in the form of a patterned layer (abstract and Figure 4(E), including the description thereof).Regarding claims 15 and 16 In addition, Lee teaches incorporating polyurethane (adhesion promoting layer, where the adhesion promoting layer excludes a metal) into an LMPNET material line improves the adhesive interfacial strength with various engineering surfaces (paragraph bridging pages 3-4), which corresponds to an adhesion promoting layer disposed between the first solid layer and the ion barrier layer, the second solid layer and the ion barrier layer, or both. Regarding claim 17 In addition, Lee teaches the thickness of a photopatterned LMPNET (ion barrier layer) is approximately 23 µm (Figure 4(E), including the description thereof), which falls within the claimed range. Regarding claim 18 Regarding the conductivity of the dielectric composite, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the dielectric composite maintains a conductivity of less than 0.2 S/cm for at least 12 hours in an ionic solution with a conductivity of greater than 0.2 S/cm, the claimed property is deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Lee reference teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.Regarding claims 19 and 20 In addition, Lee teaches the LMPNET conductor enables the fabrication of a multilayered high-density E-PCB, in which numerous electronic components are intimately integrated to create highly stretchable skin electronics (abstract). Lee also teaches a highly integrated stretchable electronic includes a plurality of layers assembled using the LMPNET for the E-PCBs (Figures 1(A) – (D) and 3(A) – (F), including the descriptions thereof), which corresponds to the dielectric composite and article, as claimed in claims 19 and 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783