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 invention I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 7/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/24/2026.
Drawings
Figures 1-3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Considering Figure 1, this appears to be prior art embodiments of a generic resistive vee dipole antenna, found in US 7692598 B1, and not related to any inventive embodiments. Considering Figures 2-3, these figures are copies of corresponding Figures 9 and Figure 10 from KR-10-1634565, cited by the Applicant in the Specification. Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Degraff et al. (US 2021/0239548 A1).
Considering claim 1, Degraff discloses a loading-type surveying sensor comprising:
- a copper unclad substrate (Figure 2A-2B; [0062-64]; [0036-39]); and
- a conductive region (via 220 and 230) and a resistive region (via 240) formed on the copper unclad substrate 210 (Figures 2A-2B; [0063-64]),
- wherein the conductive region and the resistive region are formed in a plurality of regions in accordance with predetermined shape and resistance value (Figures 2A-2B; [0064]).
Considering claim 2, Degraff discloses a resistive substance 240 is formed in the resistive region ([0046-49]; [0005]; [0098-100]).
Considering claim 3, Degraff discloses that the resistive substance is a carbon nanotube (CNT) ink or a conductive polymer ([0069]).
Considering claim 5, Degraff discloses that the resistive substance is formed by a screen printing method ([0082]).
Considering claim 7, Degraff discloses that a conductive substance 220,230 is formed in the conductive region (Figures 2A-2B; [0062-64]).
Considering claim 8, Degraff discloses that the conductive substance is a silver ink ([0062]).
Considering claim 10, Degraff discloses that the conductive substance is formed by an inkjet printing method ([0062]).
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.
Claims 4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degraff et al. (US 2021/0239548 A1) in view of Atluri (US 2020/0041434 A1).
Considering claim 4, the invention by Degraff discloses that the resistive substance is formed by applying a solution containing carbon nanotubes through a mesh filter to a substrate, which is considered screen printing, and thus fails to explicitly disclose that the substance is formed by spray coating.
However, Atluri teaches the technique of forming a resistive substance, specifically a CNT containing ink, by spray coating ([0014], [0017], [0024], [0035], [0076]; whereby a carbon nanotube sensing material is formed from a slurry and applied as a coating through spray coating or inkjet coating).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known equivalent spray coating technique of Atluri for the screen printing technique of Degraff, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. For the purpose of providing a resistive substance, the techniques of screen printing and spray coating are considered functionally equivalent, and their interchangeability for providing coatings or substances is well understood in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to spray coat the resistive substance in the invention by Degraff, as taught by Atluri.
Considering claim 6, the invention by Degraff discloses that the resistive substance is formed by applying a solution containing carbon nanotubes through a mesh filter to a substrate, which is considered screen printing, and thus fails to explicitly disclose that the substance is formed by inkjet printing.
However, Atluri teaches the technique of forming a resistive substance, specifically a CNT containing ink, by inkjet coating ([0014], [0017], [0024], [0035], [0076]; whereby a carbon nanotube sensing material is formed from a slurry and applied as a coating through spray coating or inkjet coating).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known equivalent inkjet coating technique of Atluri for the screen printing technique of Degraff, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. For the purpose of providing a resistive substance, the techniques of inkjet coating and screen printing are considered functionally equivalent, and their interchangeability for providing coatings or substances is well understood in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to inkjet coat the resistive substance in the invention by Degraff, as taught by Atluri.
Considering claim 9, Degraff discloses that the conductive substance is formed by inkjet printing, and thus fails to explicitly disclose that the substance is formed by a screen printing method.
However, Atluri teaches the technique of forming a conductive substance, specifically a silver ink, by a screen printing method ([0014], [0021], [0062]; whereby a silver ink is screen printed or inkjet printed to form conductive electrodes).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known equivalent screen printing technique of Atluri for the inkjet printing technique of Degraff, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. For the purpose of providing a conductive substance, the techniques of inkjet coating and screen printing are considered functionally equivalent, and their interchangeability for providing coatings or substances is explicitly provided by Atluri ([0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to screen print the conductive substance in the invention by Degraff, as taught by Atluri.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Loh et al. (US 2022/0087565 A1) discloses application of strain sensitive resistive carbon nanotube containing thin films by spray coating, screen printing or inkjet printing, whereby silver paste is used to form conductive electrodes.
Conner et al. (US 2014/0145826 A1) discloses screen-printing carbon nanotube suspensions onto a substrate to form traces for an antenna, inkjet application of conductive carbon nanotubes and spray-coating of electrodes.
Hibbard et al. (US 7692598 B1) discloses a vee dipole antenna for a radar system that uses copper pads on a printed circuit board with discreet surface mount resistors connected between the copper pads.
Kim et al. (NPL - Design and realization of a discretely loaded resistive vee dipole for ground-penetrating radars) discloses a resistively loaded vee dipole antenna for ground penetrating radar that uses a Kapton film attached to a FR-4 substrate and the antenna arms are loaded with surface-mount chip resistors.
Khaleel et al. (NPL - Carbon NanoTube Vee Dipole Antennas for Optical Applications) discloses a vee dipole antenna formed from carbon nanotubes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights