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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 03/26/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5/22/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention II in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that there is no undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because group II describes a separate invention that requires search and consideration outside of the invention in group I. The inventions are distinct, require different search strategies, and are separately usable. For example, group II is classified in A61B5/25, while group I is classified in B05D5/12. Further, invention I has separate utility for use in a different electrical function, such as in use in a solar panel or outdoor power generation.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong (KR 20220121740), herein after “Jeong”.
Regarding claim 1, Jeong teaches “A moisture-absorbing dry electrode (p.[0003]), comprising a substrate having a surface (21) and a moisture-absorbing electrode (400), comprising at least one moisture-absorbing conductive film configured to absorb moisture (42, p.[0011],), wherein the moisture-absorbing conductive film is disposed on the surface of the substrate (Fig. 5-7) wherein, a material of the moisture-absorbing conductive film comprises a uniform mixture of carbon paste, a moisture-absorbing material and a cross-linking agent, and the moisture-absorbing material comprises a nanomaterial or an inorganic adsorbent material, or a combination thereof (carbon in p.[0054])”.
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Han (KR 20200072934A), herein after “Han”.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Jeong does not teach "wherein a material of the substrate comprises a polymer material" but Han does in an analogous electrode device. Han teaches "wherein a material of the substrate comprises a polymer material (p.[0005])". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a substrate with a polymer material. As stated in p.[0005], "Polymers are inexpensive and can be manufactured simply at low temperatures" and are known for use in the art.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Hoon (KR 20210054269), herein after “Hoon”.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Jeong does not teach "wherein the carbon paste is a mixture of a solvent and one or any combinations of graphene, carbon nanotubes and carbon black", but Hoon does in an analogous electrode device. Hoon teaches "wherein the carbon paste is a mixture of a solvent and one or any combinations of graphene, carbon nanotubes and carbon black (p.[0003, 0005, 0011])". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Hoon in Jeong. As stated in Hoon, "graphene has different properties depending on its manufacturing method. Reduced graphene is relatively inexpensive but has strong hygroscopicity", is known for use in the art, and produces predictable results of absorbing moisture.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Jeong does not teach "wherein a content of the moisture-absorbing material is between 0.1 and 50 weight percentage of the carbon paste" but Hoon does in an analogous electrode device. Hoon teaches "wherein a content of the moisture-absorbing material is between 0.1 and 50 weight percentage of the carbon paste (p.[0051])". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hoon in Jeong. As stated in Hoon p.[0051], "It is advantageous to have 1 weight % or more in terms of exhibiting effects such as conductivity, infrared absorption, and surface strength" and the use of moisture absorbing material based on weight percentage produces predictable results of absorbing moisture.
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Shiraki (US 2023/0051698), herein after “Shiraki”.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Jeong does not teach " wherein the nanomaterial comprises attapulgite, silicon dioxide, zeolite, porous carbon, activated carbon, covalent organic framework material, metal organic framework material or porous organic polymer, or any combinations thereof" but Shiraki does in an analogous moisture absorbing electrode. Shiraki teaches " wherein the nanomaterial comprises attapulgite, silicon dioxide, zeolite, porous carbon, activated carbon, covalent organic framework material, metal organic framework material or porous organic polymer, or any combinations thereof (p.[0033,0035], note that acrylic acid polymer partial sodium salt crosslinked product are a type of porous organic polymer)". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Shiraki in Jeong. As stated in Shiraki, "the material absorbs moisture in the air and holds the moisture for a long time" and produces predictable results of holding moisture.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Jeong does not teach "wherein a thickness of the moisture-absorbing conductive film is between 1 μm and 2000 μm" but Shiraki does in an analogous moisture absorbing electrode. Shiraki teaches "wherein a thickness of the moisture-absorbing conductive film is between 1 μm and 2000 μm (p.[0033] "The thickness of the hygroscopic material 50 is, for example, 0.71 mm")". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Shiraki in Jeong. It is known in the art to use moisture absorbing electrode conductive films and produces predictable results of absorbing moisture from the air.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Jeong does not teach "wherein the moisture-absorbing electrode comprises multiple of the moisture-absorbing conductive films, the moisture-absorbing conductive films are stacked and arranged on the surface of the substrate, and a total thickness of the moisture-absorbing conductive films is between 1 μm and 2000 μm" but Shiraki does in an analogous moisture absorbing electrode. Shiraki teaches "wherein the moisture-absorbing electrode comprises multiple of the moisture-absorbing conductive films, the moisture-absorbing conductive films are stacked and arranged on the surface of the substrate (p.[0064]), and a total thickness of the moisture-absorbing conductive films is between 1 μm and 2000 μm (p.[0033] "The thickness of the hygroscopic material 50 is, for example, 0.71 mm")". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Shiraki in Jeong. It is known in the art to use moisture absorbing electrode conductive films and produces predictable results of absorbing moisture from the air.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Hzuka (US 2020/0016300), herein after “Hzuka”.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Jeong does not teach " wherein the inorganic adsorbent material comprises metal salt or activated alumina, or a combination thereof" but Hzuka does in an analogous moisture absorbing electrode. Hzuka teaches " wherein the inorganic adsorbent material comprises metal salt or activated alumina, or a combination thereof (p.[0076])". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Hzuka in Jeong. It is known in the art to use electrolyte salts in an absorbent material and produces predictable results of improving conductivity of the conductive film (p.[0076]).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Jeong does not teach "wherein the moisture-absorbing material comprises lithium chloride, and a moisture-absorbing ability of the moisture-absorbing electrode has a positive correlation with a content of the lithium chloride in the moisture-absorbing material" but Hzuka does in an analogous electrode device. Hzuka teaches "wherein the moisture-absorbing material comprises lithium chloride, and a moisture-absorbing ability of the moisture-absorbing electrode has a positive correlation with a content of the lithium chloride in the moisture-absorbing material (p.[0077])". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Hzuka in Jeong. It is known in the art to use lithium chloride as a moisture absorbing material and produces predictable results of producing a moisture absorbing material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abigail M Bock whose telephone number is (571)272-8856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 5712724764. 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.
/ABIGAIL BOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights