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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites “a low melting temperature” which will be interpreted in accordance with the instant Specification definition at Page 5 as “a melting temperature below 80 °C.”
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-14 drawn to a product and method of using in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
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 5, 12, and 14 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 5 recites “the LM composite material has an improved material property relative to the LM material” in Lines 1-2. While a comparison is made between the LM composite material and the LM material, the term “improved” renders the Claim indefinite. Even within the claimed closed list of material properties, the term “improved” may refer to either an increased value, a decreased value, or a subjective value. Therefore, it is unclear what “improved” means as used in the Claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “determining a motion profile based on material and geometric properties of the wire” in step (d). This recitation renders the Claim indefinite by not sufficiently determining the relationship between the steps of “determining a motion profile” and “material and geometric properties of the wire.” It is unclear what the term “based on” conveys, how one is to “determine” the motion profile “based on” material and geometric properties, and how this connects to the liquid metal sensor of Claim 1. The term “based on” does not clearly indicate what tangible active method step is required, or how one is to carry out the claimed invention. There is insufficient information for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to make a motion profile “based on material and geometric properties of the wire.
Similarly to the issue above, as used the terms “material and geometric properties of the wire” render Claim 12 indefinite. It is unclear the metes and bounds of “material and geometric properties” as these terms could refer to infinite material properties including, for example, color or particle size; geometric properties could similarly refer to subjective qualities of shape or crystal structure. Persons of ordinary skill in the art would not have sufficient information to carry out actionable and repeatable method steps in relation to a motion profile. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “the determining includes using a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture” in Lines 1-2. The determining step of Claim 10 on which Claim 14 depends is optional. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitations of Claim 14 are required. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL Chang et al.
Regarding Claims 1-2, NPL Chang et al. discloses an LM (liquid metal) sensor comprising a wire, wherein the wire is formed of a composite paste of Ga-In-SiO2 (Abstract), which takes on a wire-shape for use in printable and wearable electronics (Section 2.4), meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claim 5, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Chang et al. discloses the LM composite presents improved viscosity relative to the liquid metal material (Section 4), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 6, NPL Chang et al. discloses ball-milling to achieve uniform distribution of quartz (SiO2) particles (Page 14130), meeting the limitation of the instant claim for oxide particles.
Regarding Claim 7, NPL Chang et al. discloses the LM composite material includes eutectic gallium-indium (Introduction), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 8, NPL Chang et al. discloses the LM sensor further comprises an elastic fabric (meeting the limitation of the instant claim for an attachment mechanism) configured to attach the wire to a human to monitor pressures and motions (Pages 14129-14131), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 9, NPL Chang et al. discloses the sensor further comprises a plurality of wires, wherein each of the plurality of wires includes the LM composite material (Pages 14129-14130).
Regarding Claim 10, NPL Chang et al. discloses the sensor is configured for application in printed electronics, meeting the limitation of the instant claim for the sensor being configured to communicate motion information to a computer system (Pages 14129-14132).
Regarding Claim 11, NPL Chang et al. discloses two electrodes (Fig. 5(b)), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim for a first terminal located at a first end of the wire and a second terminal located a second end of the wire.
Regarding Claim 12, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Chang et al. discloses providing the wire to a portion of a human body to monitor motion, applying an electrical signal through the wire, monitoring the electrical signal, and determining a motion profile based on bend and resistance, (meeting the limitations of the instant claim for material and geometric properties of the wire) (Figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding Claim 13, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Chang et al. discloses processing resistance change (Fig. 5), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL Chang et al. as evidenced by NPL Zheng et al.
Regarding Claim 4, As established above, “a low melting temperature” is interpreted in accordance with the instant Specification definition at Page 5 as “a melting temperature below 80 °C.” NPL Chang et al. does not expressly relay the composition or melting temperature of eutectic indium gallium. However, the properties of this material are disclosed in NPL Zheng et al. As evidenced in NPL Zheng et al. eutectic Gallium Indium (EGaIn) has a melting temperature of 15.5 °C, and a composition of 75.5 Ga and 24.5 In, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
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.
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Chang et al. as applied to Claims 1-2 and 5-13 above further in view of NPL Chang et al. Appendix.
Regarding Claim 3, NPL Chang et al. discloses the limitations set forth above. NPL Chang et al. Appendix further teaches the quartz (SiO2)(meeting the limitation of the instant claim for the nonconductive material) includes an average particle size before ball milling of 1.7 µm and after ball milling of 1.9 µm, both lying within the instantly claimed range of 10nm – 500 µm, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Chang et al. as applied to Claims 1-2 and 5-13 above further in view of NPL Gholami et al.
Regarding Claim 3, NPL Chang et al. discloses the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Chang et al. does not expressly teach determining a motion profile using a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture.
However, NPL Gholami et al. teaches using a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture to determine a motion profile for limb movement monitored by wearable electronics (Abstract, Section 2.4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture applied to determine a motion profile for limb movement using the sensor of NPL Chang et al. in order to generalize data across patients and minimize poor estimates based on the teachings of NPL Gholami et al. at (Abstract), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would have been motivated by a desire to implement deep learning to utilize a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu, Quan, et al. "Path planning and impedance control of a soft modular exoskeleton for coordinated upper limb rehabilitation." Frontiers in Neurorobotics 15 (2021): 745531. teaches using convolutional neural networks for soft electronics monitoring of limb motion.
Sharma, Bibhu, et al. "Soft Upper‐limb wearable robotic devices: Technology and applications." Advanced Intelligent Systems 6.12 (2024): 2400266. teaches using soft robotic wearable devices to monitor human bodily force and movement.
Wu, Pengcheng, et al. "Liquid metal-based strain-sensing glove for human-machine interaction." Soft Science 3.4 (2023): N-A. teaches applying a liquid metal-based strain sensor to a glove for monitoring movements.
Ren, Zhijian, et al. "Shape memory alloy (SMA) actuator with embedded liquid metal curvature sensor for closed-loop control." Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 (2021): 599650. teaches an LM sensor embedded in a shape memory ally.
Bartlett, Michael D., et al. "High thermal conductivity in soft elastomers with elongated liquid metal inclusions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114.9 (2017): 2143-2148. teaches using banana plugs at the terminal ends of an LM sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights