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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 7-8, 12-13 in the reply filed on 3/30/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/30/26.
An OA on the merits of claims 7-8 and 12-13 as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 8, 12-13 entirely must be shown (in method diagram form) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claims 7-8 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of claim 7 is objected to because claim 7 improper depend on product claim 1, it is suggested that claim 7 must be rewritten to include all of limitations of claim 1 in proper active method claim format instead of instead of merely referring to claim 1.
The following format is suggested for preamble lines 1-2 of claim 7.
--“A preparation method for the flexible electromyographic electrode array, the method comprising steps of:”--
“(1); “(2)”; “(3)” (see lines 3, 7, 9 of claim 7) should be deleted.
Alternative term” one or more” (claim 7, lines 8) should be deleted since the phrase following call for plurals electrodes.
“one or more” (claim 7, line 11) should also be deleted, for clarity of the method claim formats.
“comprising step (4):” (claim 8, line 1) should be updated to: --” comprising:” --, to reflect changes as suggested above in claim 7 preamble.
“wherein the step (4) comprising:” (claims 12-13, line 1) should be updated to: --“wherein the” --, for clarity of the method claim formats. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-8, 12-13 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.
The preamble of the claim 7 is not clear since “preparation method” appears to be get ready or planning for something to happen. It is suggested the use of:-- “A manufacturing method for a flexible electromyographic electrode array”--, for clarity of the scope of the claim.
“the flexible electromyographic electrode array”(claim 7, line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis (LAB).
“the following steps” (claim 7, line 2) also LAB similar to above appears to be:--the method comprising steps of:”--
“transfer-printing “(claim 7, line 7) is unclear and confusing in that it is unclear as to what applicant being refer to as “transfer printing”, please be more specific because prior to this stage of the process only coating step taken place (see line 3, claim 7) no printing associated therefrom.
“the other end” (claim 7, line 5-6); “the flexible substrate”(claim 7, line 7) is/are LAB.
“by a mask plate to change hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity of position of the electrode connection pattern, and the contact solution to form one or more electrode contacts” (claim 7, line 9-12) is awkwardly worded and confusing and should be updated to positively method limitation as to how the electrode contacts are formed by using the mask plate in conjunction with the plasma cleaning process.
“encapsulating “(claim 8, line 3) is confusing since it is not known as to exactly what structure features is/are being encapsulating at this point of the process ?
“skin adhesive” (claim 12, line 4) is confusing it is unclear as to what being referring to as “skin adhesive” appears to be “a thin layer of adhesive”.
whether or not a second occurrence of “using flexible skin adhesive” (claim 13, line 4) as same as that in claim 12, line 4 ?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 7 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sadeghian- Motahar et al (US 11684305).
Sadeghian- Motahar et al discloses the claimed preparation method for the flexible electromyographic electrode array comprising the following steps:
(1) coating a liquid metal ink onto a substrate material 46 to form a liquid metal electrode pattern, wherein the liquid metal electrode pattern 44 comprises a wire, a circuit board connection pattern disposed at an end of the wire, and an electrode connection pattern disposed at the other end of the wire (see Fig. 2, step 31 in conjunction w/ Fig. 3A, and discussed in ¶ [0093]);
(2) transfer-printing the liquid metal electrode pattern 12 onto the flexible substrate 46 to form one or more liquid metal electrodes (see Fig. 3C); and
(3) performing plasma cleaning on the electrode connection pattern by a mask plate to change hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity of position of the electrode connection pattern, and the contact solution to form one or more electrode contacts (see ¶¶ [0094-0095] and Figs. 3D-F).
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.
Claim(s) 7-8, 12-13 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20210244304) in view of Sadeghian- Motahar et al (US 11684305).
Park et al discloses the claimed preparation method for the flexible electromyographic electrode array comprising the following steps:
(1) coating a liquid metal ink 121 onto a substrate material 110 to form a liquid metal electrode pattern, wherein the liquid metal electrode pattern comprises a wire, a circuit board connection
Pattern 140 disposed at an end of the wire, and an electrode connection pattern disposed at the other end of the wire (see Fig. 1 and discussed in ¶ [0086]);
PNG
media_image1.png
212
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(2) transfer-printing the liquid metal electrode pattern 12 onto the flexible substrate 46 to form one or more liquid metal electrodes (see Fig. 4); and
PNG
media_image2.png
402
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Parker et al is in silent regarding “(3) performing plasma cleaning on the electrode connection pattern by a mask plate to change hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity of position of the electrode connection pattern, and the contact solution to form one or more electrode contacts”. However, the Sadeghian- Motahar et al discloses the above in light discussion of ¶¶ [0094-0095] in conjunction with Figs. 3D-F. and plasma performing for cleaning is also well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilizes the conventional means of plasma cleaning and/or the plasma process of Sadeghian- Motahar et al as mentioned above onto invention of Park et al in order to facilitate the preparing of the fabrication process by utilizing the known and available cleaning process.
As applied to claim 8, appears to meet by the Parker et al (see Fig. 4, last process where the 161 readable as a baffle which has been removed at the end of the process).
Limitations of claims 12-13 as best understood also meet by the combination teaching as mentioned above, since providing baffle on the electrode contact and patterns and removing it after the encapsulation process is well known within the ordinary having skill in the art. Thus, to the extent that claim 12-13 is not inventive when depart from the applied and modified of Parker et al/ Sadeghian- Motahar above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Mt7/10/26
Prosecution Insights