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 . 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Species 1 and Species a without traverse in the reply filed on 04/28/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are examined.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 8 recites: “wherein each of the upper electrode layer and the lower electrode layer comprises a first metal particle/polymer layer, and a second metal particle/polymer layer.” it is not clear what “a first metal particle/polymer layer” and or “a second metal particle/polymer layer” means, does it mean two different layer? does it mean polymer layer comprising metal particles? There can be different interpretation : (1) Whether it means a structure in which first and second metal particles are formed on a polymer layer or (2) Whether it means a structure in which the first or second metal particles and a polymer layer are mixed, MPEP § 2173.02(I) states in part: “if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate”. Therefore, prior art reading on any of these two interpretation broadly meet the limitation. For expediting the prosecution both the claim is rejected based on both interpretation. Dependent claims are rejected at least due their dependences.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeong, US 20220170797 A1.
Claim 1
Jeong teaches:
A stretchable ion-gel sensor comprising:
an ion-gel layer (e.g., Fig.2 ion conductor and 3rd stretchable layer in the middle form an ion-gel layer: Stretchable active layer containing ion conductors);
an upper electrode layer (e.g., ¶0051-0053: upper stretchable electrode layer in Fig.2: A second flexible electrode comprising a second conductor formed on a flexible active layer and dispersed in a second elastic body) disposed on a top surface of the ion-gel layer (middle layer); and
a lower electrode layer (Lower stretchable electrode layer in Fig.2: A first flexible electrode containing a first conductor dispersed in a first elastic body and formed under a flexible active layer) disposed on a bottom surface of the ion-gel layer (middle layer),
wherein each of the upper electrode layer and the lower electrode layer comprises a first metal particle and polymer layer (first conductor and first elastomer layer, a polymer is a large molecule made of repeating smaller units, an elastomer is a special type of stretchy polymer like rubber: the first conductor and the second conductor each include a nanowire shape, and the stretchable electrode is an AgNW/SEBS composite as cited in Example 1), and a second metal particle and polymer layer (as cited in e.g., ¶0051-0056: first conductor and the second conductor may be the same as or different from each other, and each of the first conductor and the second conductor may independently include at least one selected from the group consisting of silver (Ag), gold (Au), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), zirconium (Zr), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), tin (Sn), and a conductive polymer ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, US 20220170797 A1 in view of KIM, KR 20200108945 A.
Claim 1
Jeong teaches:
A stretchable ion-gel sensor comprising:
an ion-gel layer (e.g., Fig.2 ion conductor and 3rd stretchable layer in the middle form an ion-gel layer: Stretchable active layer containing ion conductors);
an upper electrode layer (e.g., ¶0051-0053: upper stretchable electrode layer in Fig.2: A second flexible electrode comprising a second conductor formed on a flexible active layer and dispersed in a second elastic body) disposed on a top surface of the ion-gel layer (middle layer); and
a lower electrode layer (Lower stretchable electrode layer in Fig.2: A first flexible electrode containing a first conductor dispersed in a first elastic body and formed under a flexible active layer) disposed on a bottom surface of the ion-gel layer (middle layer),
wherein each of the upper electrode layer and the lower electrode layer comprises a first metal particle and polymer layer (first conductor and first elastomer layer, a polymer is a large molecule made of repeating smaller units, an elastomer is a special type of stretchy polymer like rubber: the first conductor and the second conductor each include a nanowire shape, and the stretchable electrode is an AgNW/SEBS composite as cited in Example 1), and a second metal particle and polymer layer (as cited in e.g., ¶0051-0056: first conductor and the second conductor may be the same as or different from each other, and each of the first conductor and the second conductor may independently include at least one selected from the group consisting of silver (Ag), gold (Au), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), zirconium (Zr), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), tin (Sn), and a conductive polymer ).
Jeong does not specifically teach a first metal particle/polymer layer and a second metal particle/polymer layer.
In the similar field of endeavor, KIM1 in FIG. 1 teaches a flexible electronic device (electronic skin, etc.) and a configuration in which a conductive layer and a flexible layer are formed in a laminated (multilayer).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use KIM‘s stacked electrode layer for Jeong‘s metal particle and polymer layer wherein each of the modified Jeong’s upper electrode layer and the modified Jeong’s lower electrode layer comprises a first metal particle/polymer layer, and a second metal particle/polymer layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve elongation and directionality (KIM e.g., in Abstract suggesting the layered structure to improve stretchability and directionality and easy production).
Claim 2
Jeong in view of KIM teaches the stretchable ion-gel sensor of claim 1, Jeong further teaches wherein
the ion-gel layer comprises a mixture of an ionic liquid and a polymer binder (e.g., ¶0063,0064stretchable active layer, which serves as the middle layer in the sensor, consists of a third elastomer that acts as a polymer binder for the ion conductor, this elastomeric, rubber-like structure enables the sensor to maintain functionality while stretching, and besides this is a product by process claimed limitation2 and besides),
the ionic liquid comprises at least one selected from a group (e.g., ¶0067)3 consisting of 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ([EMIM][TFSI]), 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ([BMIM][TFSI]), 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ([BMIM][PF6]), 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate ([EMIM][BF4]), 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate ([BMIM][BF4]), 1-butyl-1-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ([BMPYR][TFSI]), 1-butyl-1-methylpyrrolidinium tris(pentafluoroethyl)trifluorophosphate ([BMPYR][FAP]), 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium tris(pentafluoroethyl)trifluorophosphate ([EMIM][FAP]), 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide ([EMIM][FSI]), and ethyl-dimethyl-propylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ([EDMPA][TFSI]), and
the polymer binder comprises at least one selected from a group (e.g., ¶0107,0102-0106) consisting of poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (P(VDF-HFP)), poly(styrene-block-ethylene oxide-block-styrene (PS-PEO-PS), and poly(styrene-block-methyl methacrylate-block-styrene (PS-PMMA-PS). Examiner also holds that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. One would have been motivated to choose this material as an addition for adding strength to the base material. See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 3
Jeong in view of KIM teaches the stretchable ion-gel sensor of claim 1, Jeong further teaches wherein
the first metal particle and the second metal particle (e.g., ¶0102-0107) and
each of the first metal particle and the second metal particle comprises at least one selected from a group (e.g., ¶0056) consisting of gold (Au), silver (Ag), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), zirconium (Zr), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), and tin (Sn).
Although Jeong does not specifically teach each have a diameter of 5 micrometers (μm) to 20 μm, Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that metal particles as tiny pieces of a metallic element ranges in size from a single atom to small dust with application in sensors as cited by Jeong, the specific claimed diameter of 5 micrometers (μm) to 20 μm, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” diameter size disclosed by Jeong that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired signal detection based on the conductivity, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the claimed range is used, as already suggested by Jeong. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the range as stated and since these ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of Jeong. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed range or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 4
Jeong in view of KIM teaches the stretchable ion-gel sensor of claim 1, Jeong further teaches wherein
the first metal particle (Metal particles are found in the first stretchable electrode and the second stretchable electrode. Jeong states that both electrodes consist of an elastomer (a stretchy, rubber-like material) mixed with a conductor. In stretchable sensors, these conductors are typically tiny particles of metal, like silver (Ag) or gold (Au)) of the upper electrode layer) but does not specifically teach is in an amount of 75% by weight (wt %) to 80 wt % in the first metal particle/polymer layer, and the second metal particle of the upper electrode layer is in an amount of 67 wt % to 80 wt % in the second metal particle/polymer layer, however, as cited above Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). i.,e., Applicant should show using these claimed range of wt% are unexpected or amend claim with the feature which makes the claimed invention different from prior art not only the specific value of wt%.
Claim 5
Jeong in view of KIM teaches the stretchable ion-gel sensor of claim 1, although Jeong does not specifically teaches wherein the first metal particle of the lower electrode layer is in an amount of 75 wt % to 80 wt % in the first metal particle/polymer layer, and the second metal particle of the lower electrode layer is in an amount of 67 wt % to 80 wt % in the second metal particle/polymer layer, however, as cited above Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). i.,e., Applicant should show using these claimed range of wt% are unexpected.
Claim 6
Jeong in view of KIM teaches the stretchable ion-gel sensor of claim 1, wherein the polymer layer of the upper electrode layer and the polymer layer of the lower electrode layer each comprise at least one selected from a group (see e.g., Example 1-1 in ¶0104-0108) consisting of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) block copolymer rubber, styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS) block copolymer rubber, styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) block copolymer rubber, polyisoprene rubber, styrene butadiene (SB) block copolymer rubber, styrene-isoprene (SI) block copolymer rubber, styrene-isoprene-butadiene-styrene (SIBS) block copolymer rubber, styrene-ethylene-propylene-styrene (SEPS) block copolymer rubber, and styrene-ethylene-propylene (SEP) block copolymer rubber.
Claim 7
Jeong in view of KIM teaches the stretchable ion-gel sensor of claim 1, Jeong further teaches wherein
each of the upper electrode layer and the lower electrode layer further comprises an elastic substrate (e.g., ¶0052), and
the elastic substrate comprises at least one selected from a group (see e.g., Example 1-1 in ¶0104-0108) consisting of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), a fluoroelastomer, a poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) copolymer, thermosetting polyurethane, silicone, Ecoflex, and Dragon skin.
Claim 8
Jeong in view of KIM teaches the stretchable ion-gel sensor of claim 1, although Jeong does not specifically teach wherein when an amount of metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer is less than 75 wt %, the stretchable ion-gel sensor has an impedance of 106 ohms (Ω) to 107 Ω in a frequency range of 100 hertz (Hz) to 102 Hz, when the amount of the metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer is greater than or equal to 75 wt % and less than or equal to 80 wt %, the impedance of 106 Ω to 107 Ω is maintained in the frequency range of 100 Hz to 102 Hz, and when the amount of the metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer exceeds 80 wt %, the impedance is in a range of 106 Ω to 109 Ω in the frequency range of 100 Hz to 102 Hz. However, first of all Jeong teaches for an amount wt % of metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer the stretchable ion-gel sensor has an impedance definite ohms (Ω) range to in a frequency range of HZ , specifically claiming when an amount of metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer is less than 75 wt %, the stretchable ion-gel sensor has an impedance of 106 ohms (Ω) to 107 Ω in a frequency range of 100 hertz (Hz) to 102 Hz,
when the amount of the metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer is greater than or equal to 75 wt % and less than or equal to 80 wt %, the impedance of 106 Ω to 107 Ω is maintained in the frequency range of 100 Hz to 102 Hz, and when the amount of the metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer exceeds 80 wt %, the impedance is in a range of 106 Ω to 109 Ω in the frequency range of 100 Hz to 102 H, absent any criticality and considered achievable via routine experiments and rejected based on obviousness. In other words, the skilled artisan would know too that depends on wt% of metal particles the stretchable ion-gel sensor has an definite impedance ohms (Ω) range in a frequency range of Hz,, the specific claimed (when an amount of metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer is less than 75 wt %, the stretchable ion-gel sensor has an impedance of 106 ohms (Ω) to 107 Ω in a frequency range of 100 hertz (Hz) to 102 Hz,when the amount of the metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer is greater than or equal to 75 wt % and less than or equal to 80 wt %, the impedance of 106 Ω to 107 Ω is maintained in the frequency range of 100 Hz to 102 Hz, and when the amount of the metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer exceeds 80 wt %, the impedance is in a range of 106 Ω to 109 Ω in the frequency range of 100 Hz to 102 Hz), absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range disclosed by Jeong that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired signal detection based on the conductivity, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the claimed range is used, as already suggested by Jeong. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the range as stated and since these ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of Jeong. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed range or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
CN 105066863 A teaches: A stretchable ion-gel sensor (fig.1) comprising:
an layer 3; an upper electrode layer 1 disposed on a top surface of the layer 3; and
a lower electrode layer 2disposed on a bottom surface of the layer 3, based on electroactive elastomer polymer of the displacement sensor, comprising a signal generation and conditioning device, a first connecting electrode, a sensor device, a second connecting electrode and signal feedback and detection device. the sensor device is a multi-layer structure, comprising a protective layer, a flexible electrode layer, an electroactive elastomer polymer layer, a flexible electrode layer and protective layer, a sensor device having a large aspect ratio and thin thickness.
US 5746207 A, teaches surface of the electrode sensor element ensures firm electrical contact between the sensor and the gel pad as well as increasing the contact area and thus decreasing the sensor-gel interface impedance.
US 10251238 B2 in fig.4E teaches impedance (ohms or Ω) as a function of the real part of impedance (ohms) showing electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement of an ionic conductor used in a device according to various embodiments. FIG. 4E is a plot 400e of the imaginary part of impedance (ohms) as a function of the real part of impedance (ohms) showing electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement of an ionic conductor used in a device according to various embodiments. The ionic conductor is sandwiched between two indium tin oxide (ITO) glass. Each ITO glass has a width of 0.7 cm, a length of 1.3 cm and a thickness of 0.05 cm.
US 20230175900 A1, teaches tactile sensor wherein the weight percent of the ionic liquid based upon the total weight of the ionic liquid polymer within the sensing layers is selected from the group consisting of from 0.01 or more to 10 or less weight percent (wt %) of ionic liquid, from 0.05 or more to 7.5 or less weight percent (wt %) ionic liquid, from 0.5 or more to 5 or less weight percent (wt %) ionic liquid, and from 1 or more to 2.5 or less weight percent (wt %) ionic liquid (e.g., ¶0016).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Prior art of record
2 based on MPEP2113: For a PBP claim to be valid and distinct from prior art, the process limitation must impart a unique, structural characteristic to the final product. Simply stating the intended use or a standard process isn't enough if the prior art product has the same structure
3 This can be easily derived by a person skilled in the art from the composition in which the ionic liquid of cited invention 1 is 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (EMIM-TFSI) and the third elastomer is a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene)).
Prosecution Insights