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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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) 1,3-4,6-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vella et al. (US 2020/0040228 A1) hereinafter Vella.
Regarding claim 1, Vella discloses, in Fig.2A, a smart wearable clothing comprising: a fabric (10;Fig.2A; [0087]) ; a stretchable circuit electrode (11; Fig.2A; conductive ink) formed on the fabric; a stretchable anisotropic conductive film (12;[0086] and [0089]) formed on the circuit electrode (11); and a chipset (15) formed on the stretchable ACF (12).
Regarding claim 3, Vella discloses wherein the circuit electrode is printed with a conductive ink (see 11).
Regarding claim 4, Vella discloses, wherein the conductive ink comprise, a silver nano-particle ([0092]).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that the limitations of the method steps “wherein a curing time of the conductive ink ranges from 1 minute to 1 hour” are process limitations in a product claim and is treated in accordance with MPEP 2113. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process". In re Thorpe, 777Fo 2d 695,698 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). See also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Vella is silent as to the wherein a strain rate of the circuit electrode is 2 times or less based on a state in which an external force is not applied. However, the composition of silver nano-particle as shown by Vellais the same as the composition described and claimed in present claimed conductive electrode material. “ Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseperable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada,911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed.Cir.1990).
Regarding claim 10, Vella discloses wherein the stretchable ACF is physically bonded to the fabric on which the circuit electrode is formed, and the chipset (see 12 bonded to 10 and 15 in Fig.2A).
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 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 of this title, 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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vella as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2007/0299471) hereinafter Takahashi.
Regarding claim 2, Vella fails to specifically disclose the fabric comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of cotton, nylon, polyester, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), spandex,polyurethane (PU), neoprene, silk, artificial silk (art silk), rayon, modal, linen, wool, acrylic, artificial leather, laminated fabric, acetate, polypropylene, suede, neoprene, lyocell, high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and aramid.
Takahashi discloses polyester ( [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the material of Takahashi to modify the fabric of Vella to allow a user to wear that is breathable and heat resistant.
Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vella.
Regarding claim 5, Vella discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a modulus of the conductive ink is 10 times or less than a modulus of the fabric. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use wherein a modulus of the conductive ink is 10 times or less than a modulus of the fabric to provide conductivity to perform circuit operations, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Claim (s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vella as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (JP 2020007660A).
Regarding claim 8, Vella fails to specifically disclose wherein the stretchable ACE comprises a thermoplastic rubber.
Yamamoto discloses wherein the stretchable ACE comprises a thermoplastic rubber ( see” As the resin adhesive sheet 8, an anisotropic conductive film in which fine metal particles are dispersed in a thermosetting resin or a thermoplastic resin film can be suitably used. Examples of the thermoplastic resin film include a polyurethane hot melt resin, a polyester hot melt resin, a polyamide hot melt resin, an EVA hot melt resin, a polyolefin hot melt resin, a styrene elastomer resin, and a moisture-curable urethane hot melt. Resins and films made of reactive hot melt resins can be used”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the material of Yamamoto to modify the adhesive of Vella in order to provide great heat resistance external temperature changes.
It is noted that the limitations of the method steps recited in claim 8 “grafted with a maleic anhydride” are process limitations in a product claim and is treated in accordance with MPEP 2113. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process". In re Thorpe, 777Fo 2d 695,698 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). See also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 9, Vella fails to specifically disclose wherein the thermoplastic rubber comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS), styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS), styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS), polyurethane (PU)-based rubber, and polyolefin (PO)-based rubber.
Yamamoto discloses wherein the thermoplastic rubber is polyolefin (PO)-based rubber( see” As the resin adhesive sheet 8, an anisotropic conductive film in which fine metal particles are dispersed in a thermosetting resin or a thermoplastic resin film can be suitably used. Examples of the thermoplastic resin film include a polyurethane hot melt resin, a polyester hot melt resin, a polyamide hot melt resin, an EVA hot melt resin, a polyolefin hot melt resin, a styrene elastomer resin, and a moisture-curable urethane hot melt. Resins and films made of reactive hot melt resins can be used”)..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the material of Yamamoto to modify the adhesive of Vella in order to provide great heat resistance external temperature changes.
Claim (s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vella.
Regarding claim 11, Vella fails to specifically disclose wherein the stretchable ACF has a pitch of 1 micrometer to 200 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use wherein the stretchable ACF has a pitch of 1 micrometer to 200 micrometers to perform circuit operations, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Regarding claim 12, Vella fails to specifically wherein the stretchable ACF has a thickness of 1 micrometers to 200 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use wherein the stretchable ACF has a thickness of 1 micrometers to 200 micrometers. in order to provide electrical conductivity to perform circuit operations, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vella as applied to claim above, and further in view of Hsu et al. (US 2022/0117557 A1) hereinafter Hsu.
Regarding claim 13, Vella fails to specifically wherein the chipset comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of an integrated circuit (IC), a light-emitting diode (LED), a system on chip (SoC), a transistor, a condenser, a capacitor, an antenna, and a sensor.
Hsu discloses a LED ( see 103;Fig.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Hsu to modify the device of Vella in order to perform various circuit operations.
Claim (s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vella as applied to claim above, and further in view of Cronn (US 2008/0223844 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Vella fails to specifically disclose the smart wearable clothing further comprises a heating wire printed on the fabric.
Cronn discloses the smart wearable clothing further comprises a heating wire(104;Fig.2) printed on the fabric.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Cronn to modify the device of Vella in order to provide warming to a user during winter climates.
Regarding claim 15, Vella fails to specifically disclose a sensor formed on the stretchable ACF; and an ultra-lightweight device configured to supply a power to the sensor or perform wired or wireless data communication in real time.
Cronn discloses a sensor (102) ; and an ultra-lightweight device (114) configured to supply a power to the sensor or perform wired data communication in real time (114 connects to 102 through power bus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Cronn to modify the device of Vella in order to detect human motion.
Regarding claim 16, Vella fails to specifically disclose wherein the sensor is a flexible sensor (see 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Cronn to modify the device of Vella in order to detect human motion.
Regarding claim 17, the Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitation of “the wearable system is customized for sports by sensing movements of joints and muscles or a heart rate and breathing by controlling a position and a combination of the sensor.” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of modified Vella who teaches the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitation of “an application configured to control the ultra-lightweight device, wherein a condition or an exercise efficiency is monitored in real time by connecting the sensor and an algorithm” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of modified Vella who teaches the structure as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETE LEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (2nd & 4th Friday Off). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PETE T LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848