DETAILED ACTION
In response to Amendments/Arguments filed 4/8/2026. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are pending. Claim 1 was amended. Claim 8 was cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keite-Telgenbüscher (US 20140216654; Hereafter “Keite”) in view of Bahiraei et al. (Energy Conversion and Management) with evidence from Nag et al. (Materials & Design).
Keite discloses an electrically conductive adhesive compound and tape thereof. Concerning claims 1, 3, and 5 Keite discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive composition comprising 30 wt% ethylhexyl acrylate, 67 wt% butyl acrylate, and 3 wt% acrylic acid, and conductive filler, wherein the ethyl hexyl acrylate and butyl acrylate are non-polar monomers and the acrylic acid is a polar monomer and the PSA is an acrylate copolymer (para. 0097-0107). The term “for skin applications” is considered intended use and not given patentable weight since the structure of the adhesive is the same as that claimed. However, Keite is silent to the micro-platelets as claimed. Regarding claim 4, since the non-polar materials are the same as that in the instant Example, the content of acid esters and molar masses of the non-polar monomers of Keite would meet the instant limitations.
With respect to claim 6, the content of the electrically conductive filler is 20 to 45 wt% (para. 0107). Regarding claim 7, the conductive filler can be carbon particles such as graphene or carbon nanotubes (para. 0055). In regards to claims 9 and 11, since the PSA composition is the same as that claimed, the Tg and adhesive force values would be within the claimed ranges. With respect to claim 12, the PSA has a thickness preferably of 10 to 50 microns (para. 0079). Concerning claim 13, the PSA is disposed on a conductive carrier (para. 0067-0076; claim 16). However, Keite is silent to the micro-platelets as claimed.
Bahiraei discloses the graphene nanoplatelets have 10 to 30 graphene sheets and are easier to disperse than single sheet graphene (pp. 1224-1225; Section 2.2). As evidenced by Nag, graphene nanoplatelets are particles having 10 or more graphene sheets with a particle size of 1 to 50 microns, which meets the definition of “micro-platelet” (Nag; section 2.3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a graphene nanoplatelet, which is equivalent to the claimed micro-platelet, as the graphene conductive filler of Keite, in order to disperse the filler easier than single layer graphene.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keite-Telgenbüscher (US 20140216654; Hereafter “Keite”) in view of Bahiraei et al. (Energy Conversion and Management) with evidence from Nag et al. (Materials & Design) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Czech et al. (European Polymer Journal).
The prior art discloses the above but is silent to a crosslinking agent.
Czech discloses crosslinking agents for acrylic PSAs, wherein the crosslinking agent is found at a content of 0.2 to 1.0 wt% (pp. 2154-2159; FIGS. 12 and 13). Crosslinking agents in acrylic PSAs change the tack, cohesion, and adhesion and also builds shear, heat, and chemical resistance (FIG. 1; pp. 2154-2155, section 2). As such, to balance the tack, cohesion, and adhesion of the adhesive, while also building shear, heat, and chemical resistance of the adhesive, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a crosslinking agent into the adhesive composition of Keite.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-14 of copending Application No. 18/596191 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite an adhesive having the claimed amounts of polar monomers, non-polar monomers, and electrically conductive particles with the claimed structure. While it is noted that the ‘191 claims do not recite the claimed adhesive force, since the adhesive has the same materials and at the same amounts, the adhesive force would be within the claimed range. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed conductive particles provide all of the electrical conductivity for the dry electrode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art is silent to all of the electrical conductivity of the PSA being provided by electrically conductive particles. Examiner notes that the terms “electrically conductive particle” is defined as having an electrical conductivity of at least 106 S/m at 25°C and is/was examined as such.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 4, filed 4/8/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Examiner acknowledges the instant amendments overcome the previous rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 4-5, filed 4/8/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection under Keite have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. However, it is noted that Keite is still applicable as shown above as a primary reference in an obviousness rejection as shown above. Examiner further acknowledges that “nanoplatelet” was meant as “micro-platelet”. Nevertheless, it is noted that within the art as evidenced by Nag, “graphene nanoplatelet” has the dimensions of what is considered to be “micro-platelet” and therefore considered interchangeable as shown above. Furthermore, the Bahiraei and Czech is still applicable as shown above. With respect to Czech, Applicant asserts that there is no articulated reasoning. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that explicit reasoning is taught by Czech and disclosed. Applicant disagreeing with the motivation does not render the motivation provided by Czech as improper since Examiner provided a motivation that is explicitly recited and Applicant has provided no technical reason as to why the references cannot be combined.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7, filed 4/8/2026, with respect to 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections under Park and in view of Czech have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s assertions regarding the Park reference.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/2026 with respect to the double patenting rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is still maintained for the above reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights