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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon entry filed on 14 August 2025, Claim(s) 6-9 are withdrawn. The currently pending claims are Claims 1-9.
Applicants’ remarks have been carefully considered; however, they are not found persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Citation Notation
The following citations are made for the convenience of the reader:
Citations to Pre -Grant publications are made to paragraph number under the ¶ format. Citations to other publications are made under the format “1/2” or pp 1 are directed to column and line number or to a page - whichever is appropriate. It is noted that any reference to a figure or a table is also directed to any accompanying text in the specification or the document. Notwithstanding those citations, the reference(s) is (are) relied upon for the teachings as a whole.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu (CN111482188A).
Claims 1-3: Niu discloses a conductive film comprising a layered MXene Ti3C2Tx-TiO2 composite with a layered Ti3C2Tx having surface functional groups such as -OH and -F and the TiO2 being on the surface (abs, pg. 2-4, examples and Figs 1, 2 and 6-10 with accompanying text). The Niu reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed tetravalent to di/tri/tetravalent proportion. It is noted that the molar ratio is merely reflective of the amount of TiO2 (which is tetravalent) to the total amount of Ti in TiO2 and MXene (which is divalent and trivalent) – thus the molar ratio is construed as a result-effective variable given that the Niu reference discloses optimizing the amount of TiO2 in the composite to achieve the benefit gain of good current response, stability and corrosion resistance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization such as varying the experimental and loading variables, 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. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables, i.e. the amount of TiO2 in the composite, since the reference also discloses a similar end-product. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection and/or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 4 and 5: Niu discloses the electrode for biological sensing (abs, Figs 7-10 with accompanying text).
Claim(s) 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN112903763A).
Claims 1-3: Zhang discloses a conductive film comprising a layered Ti3C2Tx-TiO2/TiO composite with the Ti3C2Tx having surface functional groups such as -OH and -O and the TiO2 being on the surface (abs, pg. 3-5, examples and Figs 1, 4, 9-11 with accompanying text). The Zhang reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed tetravalent to di/tri/tetravalent proportion. It is noted that the molar ratio is merely reflective of the amount of TiO2 (which is tetravalent) to the total amount of Ti in TiO2, TiO (which is divalent) and MXene (which is usually divalent and trivalent) – thus the molar ratio is construed as a result-effective variable given that the Zhang reference discloses optimizing the amount of TiO2 in the composite to achieve the benefit gain of good current response, stability and sensing ability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization such as varying the experimental variables, 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. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables, i.e. the amount of TiO2 in the composite, since the reference also discloses a similar end-product. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection and/or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 4 and 5: Zhang discloses the electrode for biological sensing for aging meat (abs, Figs 71, 4, 9-11 with accompanying text).
Claim(s) 5 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang or Niu as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wu (CN110057882A).
Remark: The rejection is provided for compact prosecution purposes in case of a narrow interpretation of the biosignal limitation.
The Niu or Zhang reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the feature of the biosignal sensor. It is noted that the Niu or Zhang reference discloses the sensor end-product (see above) and the claim(s) call(s) for a biosignal sensor. In an analogous art, the Wu reference discloses that MXene being employed in biosignal sensors is well known in the art (abs, Examples). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known end-product of Wu to the teachings of Niu or Zhang would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the biosignal sensor application would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed 2-57% mol ratio of tetravalent titanium to divalent, trivalent and tetravalent titanium leads to the unexpected result of reduced impedance and high conductivity (pg. 5-8).
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, in order to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness, the applicant may show (1) criticality or unexpected result of the range, (2) the prior art teaches away from the claim or (3) a pertinent secondary factors to rebut the rejection under 35 USC 103. MPEP 2144.05. Here, the applicant intends to show the criticality or unexpected result of a reduced impedance and high conductivity based on a 2-57% mol ratio of tetravalent Titanium to divalent, trivalent and tetravalent (the examiner infers that the arguments are based on the showing in Table 1 of the specification). However, it is noted that the instant claims are not commensurate with the showing in Table 1 of applicant’s specification. In particular, the Showing in applicant’s specification are directed to specific and distinct components – e.g. the MXene is made from material such as Ti3AlC2 then Ti3C2Ts and differ from the instant claims which are directed to a broad M being from Group 3-7, X being C or N and various T terminal groups. After a careful evaluation and consideration of the Showing, it is the examiner’s position that the specific limitations cited in the Showing would not inexorably extrapolate to the instant broader limitations. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the narrower components recited in the Showing would inevitably lead to the same critical and unexpected results in the broader components of the instant claims. In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of non-obviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Thus, the Showing have been found insufficient to overcome the rejections and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li discloses a conductive film with an MnXn functionalized with hetero groups and TiO2.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuthers can be reached at 571.272.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights