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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is 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 1-6 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.
Claims 1-6 recite the term “tissue-like”. The addition of the word “like” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. It is unclear as to whether the claim requires a tissue or a material similar to tissue.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the polyacrylic acid” in line 2. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites “formed along polyacrylic acid within a matrix containing polyacrylic acid”. It is unclear as to which polyacrylic acid claim 4 refers. The claim does not define whether the polyacrylic acid is the polyacrylic acid that the network is formed along or the polyacrylic acid matrix. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will refer to the polyacrylic acid matrix as the polyacrylic acid.
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 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feig et al. (US Patent Application No. 2019/0390068) in view of Lu et al. (“Pure PEDOT:PSS hydrogel”, Nature Communications 10.1 (2019), Cite No. 5 on IDS submitted 4/4/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Feig et al. teach a highly conductive (page 1, paragraphs [0005], [0006]) tissue-like hydrogel (page 1, paragraphs [0004], [0006], [0007]) adhesive (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 2, paragraph [0012], page 4, paragraph [0038]) in which a three-dimensional architecture (page 1, paragraphs [0006], [0007]) containing a PEDOT network and a PSS network are formed along polyacrylic acid within a matrix of polyacrylic acid (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 2, paragraph [0012]).
Feig et al. do not disclose wherein 4.8 to 9.1 parts by weight of the conductive polymer in the hydrogel is crosslinked with respect to 100 parts by weight of polyacrylic acid. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of conductive polymer and polyacrylic acid of Feig et al. in order to provide a high electrical conductivity and a high stretchability (Feig et al., page 1, paragraph [0005]).
Feig et al. fail to teach wherein the three dimensional architecture is a nanofiber. However, Lu et al. teach a highly conductive tissue like hydrogel (page 2, col. 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, col. 2, paragraph 1) comprising a three-dimensional nanofiber containing a PEDOT network and a PSS network (page 2, col. 1, paragraph 3, col. 2, paragraph 3, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nanofiber of Lu et al. in the adhesive of Feig et al. in order to provide a hydrogel with superior electrical, mechanical and electrochemical stability (Lu et al., page 8, col. 2, paragraph 2, page 9, col. 1, paragraph 1).
The product-by-process limitation “the three-dimensional nanofiber is formed by heating a hydrogel formed through polymerization of an acrylic acid monomer containing an organic solvent and PEDOT:PSS, which is a conductive polymer, so that PEDOT and PSS are separated and dispersed from the conductive polymer” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the nanofiber. The product itself does not depend on the process of making it. MPEP 2113. It can therefore be ascertained that the nanofiber of Feig et al., as modified by Lu et al., possesses the same characteristics as the Applicant’s claimed nanofiber.
Regarding claim 2, Feig et al. fail to teach wherein the organic solvent is one or more selected form the group consisting of dimethyl sulfoxide, ethylene glycol, glycerol, and N,N-dimethylacetamide. However, Lu et al. teach a highly conductive tissue like hydrogel (page 2, col. 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, col. 2, paragraph 1) comprising a three-dimensional nanofiber containing a PEDOT network and a PSS network (page 2, col. 1, paragraph 3, col. 2, paragraph 3, Fig. 1) and an organic solvent of dimethyl sulfoxide (page 2, col. 2, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nanofiber of Lu et al. in the adhesive of Feig et al. in order to provide a hydrogel with superior electrical, mechanical and electrochemical stability (Lu et al., page 8, col. 2, paragraph 2, page 9, col. 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 3, Feig et al. teach wherein the architecture further comprises a hydrophilic polymer (page 4, paragraph [0037], page 5, paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Feig et al. teach wherein the hydrogel further comprises water (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 2, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 6, Feig et al. teach wherein the hydrogel has an electrical conductivity of at least or greater than 1 S/m which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 200 S/cm or more (page 5, paragraph [0057]) and is highly stretchable (e.g., >100% strain) which reads on Applicant’s claimed maximum stretching rate of 400 to 600% (page 1, paragraph [0008]).
Feig et al. do not disclose wherein the hydrogel has an impedance of 28 Ω at 1 kHz, a tensile strength of 120 to 350 kPa and a resistance storage capacity of 31 to 80 mC/cm2. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in impedance, tensile strength and resistance storage capacity involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the impedance, tensile strength and resistance storage capacity of Feig et al., as modified by Lu et al., in order to provide a hydrogel with high conductivity, high stretchability and low and elastic modulus which is useful in electronics (Feig et al., page 1, paragraph [0007]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feig et al. (US Patent Application No. 2019/0390068) in view of Lu et al. (“Pure PEDOT:PSS hydrogel”, Nature Communications 10.1 (2019), Cite No. 5 on IDS submitted 4/4/2024), in further view of Iwase et al. (US Patent Application No. 2020/0291274).
Feig et al. and Lu et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 4, Feig et al. fail to tech wherein the polyacrylic acid has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 to 150,000 g/mol. However, Iwase et al. teach an adhesive sheet (page 1, paragraph [0009]) comprising PSS:PEDOT (page 3, paragraph [0028]) and an acrylic polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 to 3,000,000 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 100,000 to 150,000 g/mol (page 4, paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the molecular weight of the polyacrylic acid of Feig et al. to that of Iwase et al. in order to provide sufficient adhesiveness (Iwase et al., page 4, paragraph [0036]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 2/5/2026