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 . Claims 1, 3-12, 14-18, and 20-21 are currently pending, with claims 14-18 and 20-21 standing as withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US Publication 2020/0375486 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Kim et al. US Patent 11,491,327 (hereinafter Kim ‘327) in further view of Kim et al. “Employment of gold-coated silver nanowires as transparent conductive electrode for organic light emitting diodes,” Nanotechnology 28, 345201, 2017 (hereinafter Kim) and Jiu et al. “Strongly adhesive and flexible transparent silver nanowire conductive films fabricated with a high-intensity pulsed light technique,” J. Mater. Chem. 22, 23561–23567, 2012 (hereinafter Jiu).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a bioelectrode ([0003]-[0006][0034]) comprising: a nanofiber elastic mesh sheet including a polymer nanofiber formed by electrospinning ([0036]-[0037][0071]); a first metal nanowire network which is embedded on the nanofiber elastic mesh sheet ([0046][0053] which details it can be made of silver), but is at least partially exposed to the outside ([0054]). Lee further discloses that the exposed mesh network as claimed is shown to be uneven (see Figure 1A).
Lee is silent on the second metal. Kim ‘327 teaches a biocompatible, stretchable electrode device that includes a substrate (SBS) that include an uneven layer resulting from a second metal which is placed on the first metal nanowire network exposed to the outside (Figure 2, showing an uneven layering, see also columns 3 though line 4 of column 4 as well as column 6 lines 25-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the second metal as taught by Kim with the nanowires of Lee in order to increase the biocompatibility of the electrode as gold is less chemically reactive (column 5 lines 1-10).
Lee and Kim ‘327 however, does not detail the second metal network being deposited on the first network as they are integrated to each other and coated on the PEDOT substrate (in Kim ‘327). Kim teaches a coating process for electrodes that includes applying a second metal network to a first existing metal nanowire network (gold coated over a silver nanowire, abstract, Figures 2-3, see also Results and Discussion section, paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to apply the second metal as taught by Kim with the nanowires and second metal type of Lee and Kim ‘327 as predictable results would have ensued (applying the second metal by a known alternate process yielding comparable results regarding conductivity and in the case of Kim ‘327, biocompatibility).
Lee is additionally silent on the manufacturing step of optical sintering for the first metal nanowire network. Jiu teaches optimization of the same process including optical sintering of Ag nanowires on a polymer substrate at a contact point/melt junction (abstract, page 23563, under Section 3 Results and Discussion, as well as page 23564, paragraphs 1-2, which details high-intensity pulsed light causing rapid local surface melting and enhanced surface diffusion of Ag nanowires, thereby welding/sintering the nanowires). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to apply Jiu's optical-sintering technique to the Ag nanowire network of Lee in order to both increase adhesion to the underlying substrate as well as reducing contact resistance between the network’s nanowires.
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses that the first metal nanowire is a silver (Ag) nanowire ([0078]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches a first metal (as mentioned above) but is silent on a second metal. Kim ‘327 teaches that the second metal is any one or more selected from titanium (Ti), tantalum (Ta), platinum (Pt), and gold (Ag) (claim 3 and column 3 lines 48 through column 4 lines four). Kim also teaches the use of gold (as mentioned above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the additional metal as taught by Kim ‘327/Kim with the metal nanowire network of Lee in order to increase biocompatibility as it is less chemically reactive.
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified by Kim ‘327, Kim, and Jiu is silent on the exact loading amount. However, the Applicant does not detail any criticality for the loading amount, nor any found unexpected results. Therefore, given the above and that the materials are identical to those presently disclosed in the specification where the device is to be used in the exact same environments, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date to have the sheet resistance within the same range as they would have been achieved by routine experimentation and would have produced predictable results (see MPEP 2144.05-IIA).
Regarding claim 6, Lee is silent on the thickness. Kim teaches that the coating of gold (also an uneven layer) include a thickness of 5 to 150 nm (column 6 lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the metal and optimize thickness of the layer of Kim with the device of Lee as a matter of design choice given routine experimentation as both devices are to be utilized in the exact same biological locations.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses that the polymer is one or more selected from an olefin-based elastomer, a styrene-based elastomer, a thermoplastic polyester-based elastomer, a thermoplastic polyurethane-based elastomer, a thermoplastic acryl-based elastomer, a thermoplastic vinyl-based polymer, a thermoplastic fluorine-based polymer, and a mixture thereof (PVA is listed as per [0047] which is a thermoplastic elastomer).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses a glass transition temperature of the polymer is 60°C or lower (the same polymer listed, PVA as per [0017], is also one of the disclosed examples that could be used, it would reasonably include the same glass transition temperature, though this also falls under product-by-process limitations, see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses a diameter ratio of first metal nanowire: polymer nanofiber is 1:5 to 1:100 ([0018] which includes that the polymer thickness can be from 10-990nm while the coating of metal can be 1-500nm).
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified by Kim ‘327, Kim, and Jiu discloses the structure of the device of claim 1 above, but is silent on the sheet resistance and the method of manufacturing. The Applicant does not detail any criticality for the percentage of sheet resistance change, nor any found unexpected results. Therefore, given the above and that the materials are identical to those presently disclosed in the specification, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date to have the sheet resistance within the same range as they would have been achieved by routine experimentation and would have produced predictable results (see MPEP 2144.05-IIA). This also falls within the bounds of product-by-process see MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses that the fluid is a liquid phase ([0072]) including any one or more selected from distilled water, a surfactant, and a physiological saline solution ([0073]), however it should be noted that this is considered an intermediate step for a product-by-process type limitation and as such only the final product need be the same or comparable, see MPEP 2113)
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses that the bioelectrode is skin-attachable or implantable ([0003]-[0006][0081]).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. New art is applied above to remedy any deficiencies in the prior art of record, specifically given the optical sintering limitation, which does change the metal layering from the previous rejection, as it could no longer be capable of being made in the same way alone.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian M Antiskay whose telephone number is (571)270-5179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/BRIAN M ANTISKAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights