DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on December 19, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of all claims together would promote efficiency and consistency without causing undue burden in examination. This is not found persuasive because as described in the Restriction Requirement mailed on October 23, 2025 the inventions are distinct from each other because the product of Group I can be made by another and materially different process than that of Group II. For example, the product of Group I can be made by transfer printing the MXene coil geometry rather than printing the MXene directly onto the textile as in Group I. Additionally there is serious examination burden because Group I would be searched in at least CPC D03D 1/0085 along with a unique text search including transfer printing. Group II would not be searched as above and instead would require a search in at least CPC H01F 5/003 along with a unique text search including decreasing the resistance of the coil with multiple printing passes directly on the textile.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Currently claims 16-20 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-14 pending for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
reference number 110 in Fig. 1 and
reference numbers 220, 222, and 290 in Fig. 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 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.
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(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabham (“Fabrication Techniques for Manufacturing Flexible Coils on Textiles for Inductive Power Transfer”) in view of Uzun ("Additive-Free Aqueous MXene Inks for Thermal Inkjet Printing on Textiles").
With respect to claims 1 and 9, Grabham teaches the use of inductive power transfer in textile based applications through conductive coils which can be realized on textiles using a number of fabrication processes familiar to the textile industry (1. Introduction) such as using a screen printing technique to deposit functional (e.g. conductive) materials onto the surface of the textile (III.A. Screen Printing). A printed coil design seen in Fig. 2 uses multiple print cycles and includes at least two coil loops (Figure 2; IV.A. Printed Coil Design). The composition may be used to power or recharge e-textiles (I. Introduction) and may be integrated into items such as clothing (VIII. Conclusion). Grabham further teaches the coils may be integrated into items such as clothing (VIII. Conclusion).
Grabham is silent as to conductive material deposited during the printing process being MXene ink.
Uzun teaches direct printing of MXene inks onto textiles for fabrication of wearable electronics (abstract; 2.2. TIJ Printing of Additive-Free Aqueous TI3C2Tx Inks). MXenes are an emerging family of 2D transition metal carbides and/or nitrides which have a unique combination of electrical, electrochemical, rheological, and mechanical properties (1. Introduction). They are highly conductive (up to 15 000 S cm-1), have impressive energy storage capabilities, and are hydrophilic, allowing easy processing in water without the need for additives to control the properties of the ink (1. Introduction).
Since both Grabham and Uzun teach printing of conductive inks onto textiles to form wearable electronics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive ink of Grabham to be an MXene ink in order to provide a printed pattern that is highly conductive, has impressive energy storage, and no additives in the ink.
With respect to claims 2-3, Grabham in view of Uzun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Grabham further teaches that when constructing coils for use in inductive power transfer (IPT) applications, it is desirable to have low coil resistances to minimize resistive losses in the coils (II. Inductive Power Transfer). The resistance of the coil is governed by the dimensions of the conductive track forming the coil windings, the number of turns and therefore the length of the conductor, and also the operational frequency due to the skin effect (II. Inductive Power Transfer). The implementation of the coils involves a number of trade-offs in order to maximize the power transfer efficiency of the coil (II. Inductive Power Transfer). For instance, increasing the number of turns in the coils will increase the length of the conductor which will increase its resistance if the cross sectional area remains the same (II. Inductive Power Transfer). As a general rule it is desirable to minimize the resistance of the coil winding as far as possible within the design constraints to permit a higher number of coil turns whilst still retaining an acceptable resistance to yield an acceptable overall efficiency (II. Inductive Power Transfer).
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the number of coil loops to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a coil that provides an acceptable overall efficiency without increasing the resistance to unacceptable levels for a given coil dimension. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claim 4, Grabham in view of Uzun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Grabham further teaches the use of screen printing (III.A. Screen Printing) and Uzun further teaches the MXene ink is applied buy thermal ink jet (TIJ) printing (abstract; 2.2. TIJ Printing of Additive-Free Aqueous TI3C2Tx Inks)
The limitation “wherein the MXene ink composition is printed onto the first substrate via one of a screen printer, stencil, and direct ink write printer” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because as discussed above Grabham in view of Uzun discloses the claimed structure and passes. Additionally, the instant specification acknowledges screen printing and ink jet printing as suitable manufacturing methods to create MXene coils on fabric (instant specification; paragraphs [0027], [0031]). Therefore the structure of a screen printed or ink jet printed MXene coil such as in Grabham in view of Uzun is expected to the same as the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 5, Grabham in view of Uzun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Grabham further teaches the integration of coils into textiles for the purpose of enabling low-power wireless power transfer (Abstract).
With respect to claim 6, Grabham in view of Uzun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Grabham further teaches the coils may be integrated into items such as clothing (VIII. Conclusion).
With respect to claim 7, Grabham in view of Uzun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Grabham further teaches the coil is printed on a 65/35 polyester/cotton fabric (IV.A. Printed Coil Design).
With respect to claim 8, Grabham in view of Uzun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Uzun further teaches that MXenes are 2D transition metal carbides and/or nitrides (1. Introduction) and that the MXene infiltrates into the fabric (2.2. TIJ Printing of Additive-Free Aqueous TI3C2Tx Inks). Therefore, the coil geometry is a two-dimensional planar pattern.
The limitation “that supports the magnetic coupling of energy” is a use limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. The use of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed use because Grabham in view of Uzun teaches MXene ink printed in a coil geometry on a fabric that forms wearable wireless power transfer textile garments as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Since Grabham in view of Uzun teaches the same materials and structure as disclosed by the Applicant, then it would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
With respect to claims 10-11, Grabham in view of Uzun teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above. Grabham further teaches that to reduce the coils resistance, the film thickness of the printed conductive materials is built up using repeated print and cure cycles (III.A. Screen Printing). Uzun teaches that as the number of print passes increases the amount of active material deposited increases, resulting in a decrease in the resistance (Figure 2; 2.2. TIJ Printing of Additive-Free Aqueous TI3C2Tx Inks) and Figure 2 shows up to 24 print passes were performed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the number of printing passes to be sufficient to provide the desired coil resistance, such as 24 print passes for an MXene ink.
With respect to claim 12, Grabham in view of Uzun teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above. Grabham further teaches the use of screen printing (III.A. Screen Printing) and Uzun further teaches the MXene ink is applied buy thermal ink jet (TIJ) printing (abstract; 2.2. TIJ Printing of Additive-Free Aqueous TI3C2Tx Inks)
The limitation “wherein the MXene ink composition is printed onto the first substrate via one of a screen printer, stencil, and direct ink write printer” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because as discussed above Grabham in view of Uzun discloses the claimed structure and passes. Additionally, the instant specification acknowledges screen printing and ink jet printing as suitable manufacturing methods to create MXene coils on fabric (instant specification; paragraphs [0027], [0031]). Therefore the structure of a screen printed or ink jet printed MXene coil such as in Grabham in view of Uzun is expected to the same as the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 13, Grabham in view of Uzun teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above. Uzun further teaches that MXenes are 2D transition metal carbides and/or nitrides (1. Introduction) and that the MXene infiltrates into the fabric (2.2. TIJ Printing of Additive-Free Aqueous TI3C2Tx Inks). Therefore, the coil geometry is a two-dimensional planar pattern.
The limitation “that supports the magnetic coupling of energy” is a use limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. The use of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed use because Grabham in view of Uzun teaches MXene ink printed in a coil geometry on a fabric that forms wearable wireless power transfer textile garments as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Since Grabham in view of Uzun teaches the same materials and structure as disclosed by the Applicant, then it would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
With respect to claim 14, Grabham in view of Uzun teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above. Grabham further teaches the coils may be integrated into items such as clothing (VIII. Conclusion).
With respect to claim 15, Grabham in view of Uzun teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above. Grabham further teaches the coil is printed on a 65/35 polyester/cotton fabric (IV.A. Printed Coil Design).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789