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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on June 10, 2024 are being considered by the examiner.
The Examiner has considered all of the references submitted as part of the Information Disclosure Statement(s), but has not found any to be particularly relevant. If Applicant is aware of pertinent material in the references, he should so state in a response to this Office action.
The following is an excerpt from MPEP 609:
“Although a concise explanation of the relevance of the information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability.”
Applicant is reminded of section 2004, paragraph 13, of the MPEP.
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 15-20, these claims present a method according to the composite of claims 1-11. Therefore, the argument made against claims 1-11 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 15-20. In addition, it is clearly seen that claims 15-20 are process claims which present a process of making the composite as claimed in claims 1-11, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 10,766,004 B2) in view of Younes et al. (US 2012/0003454 A1).
Zhou et al. teaches a composite membrane comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
420
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 15, a composite (FIG. 1, composite membrane 30) comprising: a first surface (FIG. 1, first major surface 18), a second surface (FIG. 1, second major surface 19), and a thickness between the first surface (FIG. 1, first major surface 18) and the second surface (FIG. 1, second major surface 19), a porous scaffold (FIG. 1, porous substrate 10) having a plurality of pores (FIG. 1, plurality of pores of the porous substrate 10) extending from the first surface (FIG. 1, first major surface 18) into the thickness, at least some of the plurality of pores (FIG. 1, plurality of pores of the porous substrate 10) being at least partially filled with cellulose nanofibrils (nanoporous membranes, nanofiber webs and the like), and the first surface (FIG. 1, first major surface 18) of the composite (FIG. 1, composite membrane 30) having an unknown root mean square roughness (For more details, please read: Abstract; column 1, lines 41-52; from column 4, line 32 to column 5, line 31; from column 6, line 57 to column 7, line 3; column 7, lines 43-51; and column 11, lines 44-56).
Zhou et al. teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejection above, but it does not specifically teach the following feature:
A root mean square roughness of from about 0.01 to about 0.1 μm.
Younes et al. teaches a long-fiber thermoset composite comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
424
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 15, a composite (FIG. 2, composite 20) comprises a Class A quality surface (FIG. 2, Class A composite surface 23) having a root mean square roughness less than 1μm, which covers the range of from about 0.01 to about 0.1 μm.
In addition, it is noted that the feature upon which applicants rely (i.e., “from about 0.01 to about 0.1 μm”) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such potential is critical. “[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Please see MPEP 2144.05 II. OPTIMIZATION OF RANGES: Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite membrane of Zhou et al. to utilize a surface having a root mean square roughness of from about 0.01 to about 0.1 μm as taught by Younes et al. since Younes et al. teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to provide a surface of a composite that exhibits a Class A quality as disclosed in the Abstract. Class A surfaces represent the highest quality, aesthetic, functional, exterior finish, designed to be flawless, smooth, and reflective. Such an implementation can significantly improve upon what is already generally known (“a root mean square roughness less than 1μm” as disclosed by Younes et al.) to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.
With regard to claims 2 and 18, Zhou et al. teaches the porous scaffold (FIG. 1, porous substrate 10) comprises cellulose (From column 6, line 57 to column 7, line 3).
With regard to claim 3, it is well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art that a porous scaffold (FIG. 1, porous substrate 10) is characterized or modeled as a paper (specifically, a microfiber-based or sheet-like material) due to its structural, functional, and fabrication similarities to paper, particularly in the context of tissue engineering. In essence, referring to a scaffold as “paper” or a “microfibrous paper scaffold” highlights its nature as a porous, fibrous, and absorbent material designed to support cellular activity.
With regard to claims 4 and 17, Zhou et al. teaches the porous scaffold (FIG. 1, porous substrate 10) is biodegradable (From column 6, line 57 to column 7, line 3: cellulose is a natural polymer, which is a biodegradable porous scaffold (FIG. 1, porous substrate 10) material).
With regard to claims 5 and 16, Zhou et al. teaches the cellulose nanofibrils (nanoporous membranes, nanofiber webs and the like) extend from about 0.1 to about 100 μm into the thickness of the porous scaffold (FIG. 1, porous substrate 10) (From column 8, line 60 to column 9, line 37).
With regard to claim 6, Zhou et al. teaches the cellulose nanofibrils (nanoporous membranes, nanofiber webs and the like) extend up to about 100 μm into the thickness of the porous scaffold (FIG. 1, porous substrate 10) (From column 8, line 60 to column 9, line 37).
With regard to claims 7 and 19, Zhou et al. teaches at least one conductive feature (one or more layers including metal) superposed on the first surface (FIG. 1, first major surface 18) of the porous scaffold (FIG. 1, porous substrate 10) (Column 6, lines 36-50: porous substrates may be made of one or more layers including metal, and the like, or combinations (i.e., mixtures and copolymers)).
With regard to claim 8, Zhou et al. teaches the at least one conductive feature (one or more layers including metal) comprises a metal (Column 6, lines 36-50: porous substrates may be made of one or more layers including metal, and the like, or combinations (i.e., mixtures and copolymers)).
With regard to claims 9 and 20, Zhou et al. teaches the at least one conductive feature (one or more layers including metal) defines at least a portion of any one or more of a sensor, an interconnect (Column 6, lines 36-50), a resistor, a capacitor, an antenna, or a resonator.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. in view of Younes et al. as applied to claims 1-9 and 15-20 above, and further in view of Hayasaka et al. (WO 2019/188904 A1).
Zhou et al. in view of Younes et al. teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-9 and 15-20 above including at least one conductive feature (one or more layers including metal) superposed on the first surface (FIG. 1, first major surface 18) of the porous scaffold (FIG. 1, porous substrate 10) (Column 6, lines 36-50), but it does not specifically teach the following features:
At least one conductive feature defines at least a portion of any one or more of a sensor, an interconnect, a resistor, a capacitor, an antenna, or a resonator.
The sensor is characterized as a capacitor.
The sensor is configured as a humidity sensor.
The sensor module optionally being configured as a moisture sensor.
The sensor module is configured to emit and/or a detectable signal, the detectable signal optionally being indicative of a state of the sensor module.
Detecting a moisture level of a medium with a sensor module.
Hayasaka et al. teaches a humidity sensor comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
408
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
208
326
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 9, a composite (FIG. 1B, detection film 3) comprises at least one conductive feature (FIG. 1B, first electrode 4) superposed on the first surface, wherein the at least one conductive feature (FIG. 1B, first electrode 4) defines at least a portion of any one or more of a sensor (FIGS. 1A and 1B, humidity sensor 10), an interconnect, a resistor, a capacitor, an antenna, or a resonator (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0047]-[0051]).
With regard to claim 10, the sensor (FIGS. 1A and 1B, humidity sensor 10) is characterized as a capacitor (FIG. 1B, first electrode 4 and second electrode 2) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0047]-[0051]).
With regard to claim 11, the sensor (FIGS. 1A and 1B, humidity sensor 10) is configured as a humidity sensor (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0047]-[0051]).
With regard to claim 12, the sensor module (FIGS. 1A and 1B, humidity sensor 10) optionally being configured as a moisture sensor (FIGS. 1A and 1B, moisture sensitive film 3) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0047]-[0051]).
With regard to claim 13, the sensor module (FIGS. 1A and 1B, humidity sensor 10) is configured to emit and/or a detectable signal (change in capacitance), the detectable signal (change in capacitance) optionally being indicative of a state (change in humidity) of the sensor module (FIGS. 1A and 1B, humidity sensor 10) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0002], [0003] and [0047]-[0051]).
With regard to claim 14, detecting a moisture level (amount of moisture adsorbed) of a medium (FIGS. 1A and 1B, moisture sensitive film 3) with a sensor module (FIGS. 1A and 1B, humidity sensor 10) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0002], [0003] and [0047]-[0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the composite membrane of Zhou et al. to utilize the composite membrane as a detection film in a humidity sensor as taught by Hayasaka et al. since Hayasaka et al. teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to provide a humidity sensor having excellent durability as disclosed in the Abstract. Such an implementation can significantly improve the measurement accuracy as a part of the structure is exposed to the surrounding environment without being covered with electrodes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants’ attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Monti et al. (WO 2023/047061 A1) teaches a skin-simulating test device.
Bhamla et al. (WO 2022/226265 A1) teaches a dewatering system with ultrasound.
Kim et al. (CN 106486678 A) teaches a cathode-membrane assembly.
Moreno et al. (US 9,448,195 B2) teaches electrophysiological recording systems.
Hoshino et al. (US 10,981,122 B2) teaches a monolayer membrane.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858