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 Claims 1-15 and 26-28 are currently pending with claims 25-28 standing as withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton US Patent 4,008,721 (hereinafter Burton) in view of Zhiguo et al. CN 103992459A (hereinafter Zhiguo, previously cited on 06/30/2026).
Regarding claim 1, 6-10, Burton discloses a skin-attachable transparent electrode comprising: an alcohol-soluble biocompatible matrix (column 2 lines 25-64 which details a vinyl acrylic polymer which is transparent); and a conductive material network embedded in the matrix (silver flakes are detailed in column 2 lines 25-64), wherein one surface of the biocompatible elastomer matrix is dissolved upon contact with alcohol and is conformally coated on skin (Figures 1 and 3, see also column 4 lines 25-36).
Burton however is silent on the polymer being an elastomer along with the other elements associated with the elastomer. Zhiguo teaches a transparent alcohol-soluble, water insoluble, elastomeric matrix used in a transparent electrode (abstract, claims 1-8, see also page 18, paragraphs 3-4, and examples 1-6 in pages 19-21 which details a polyurethane resin that is transparent, alcohol soluble (C2 specifically mentioned, ethanol), has a glass transition temp of -10 degrees C, Figure 2 showing -89.8C, where the polyurethane comprises a polyether-based diol structural unit (pages 19-21 at examples 1-6 which details that PPG1000/2000 is used, polyether diol), and is water-insoluble (page 18 paragraph 4, as well as pages 19-21 in all examples 1-6 which details a moisture absorption rate of 5.49-8.72% depending on the example). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize a stretchable polymer as taught by Zhiguo in lieu of the polymer of Burton in order to allow the device to stretch while on the skin as it moves (a conformal device that doesn’t stretch with a moving structure like skin is more likely to mechanically degrade faster).
Regarding claim 2, Burton discloses one surface of the biocompatible elastomer matrix is conformally coated along a shape of pores of the skin (Figure 3, see also column 2 lines 25-60).
Regarding claim 3, Burton discloses that the conductive material of the conductive material network is one or a combination of two or more selected from the group consisting of a metal nanowire, a metal nanoparticle, a metal nanomesh, a carbon nanotube, a graphene-based compound, graphite, and a conductive polymer (silver particles are listed, see column 2 lines 25-60).
Regarding claims 11, Burton as modified by Zhiguo teaches the electrode of claim 1, but does not explicitly mention the Young’s modulus of 500kPa or less. The Applicant has not detailed any criticality for the exact claimed range of the modulus. The elastomeric matrix of Zhiguo (see above, see also pages 18-21, examples 1-6, abstract) is the same as the claimed matrix (polyurethane, polyether-based diol unit, applied with ethanol with the same glass transition temperature). Therefore, given the lack of criticality and including an identical final product, it would have been obvious to skilled artisan before the effective filing date to optimize these known, art-recognized parameters to achieve a Young’s modulus within the claimed range, particularly in view of the motivation to match the low modulus of human skin for improved conformal contact and reduced motion artifact during use, a goal already recognized in the prior art’s field of endeavor (See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454).
Regarding claim 12, Burton as modified by Zhiguo discloses the transparent electrode (as mentioned above), which already details the exact same material for the elastomer matrix as claimed. The present limitation recites a mechanical property of the same matrix rendered obvious above, and does not appear to further limit the structure. The composition of the prior art of record reasonably is substantially identical to the Applicant’s electrode (see contents of rejected claims 1 and 6-10 above), and as such the composition should behave the same way under the same claimed conditions (see MPEP 2112.01). The claimed reduction in elongation upon alcohol exposure follows directly and predictably from the alcohol-induced dissolution/weakening of the hard-segment hydrogen-bonded network already disclosed as occurring in the combination (claim 1), while the claimed increase in elongation upon water exposure follows predictably from water plasticization of the soft segment without disruption of that same hard-segment network, consistent with well-understood solvent–polyurethane interaction behavior of the material of Zhiguo.
Regarding claims 14-15, Burton as modified by Zhiguo discloses the transparent electrode (see contents of rejected claim 1 above) which is fully capable of being used for chronic wound healing by electrical stimulation without any additional structural modification to it. It should be mentioned that Zhiguo specifically mentions the same use on page 18, paragraphs 3-4).
Claims 4-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton in view of Zhiguo, and in further view of Khine et al. US Publication 2017/0281082 (hereinafter Khine).
Regarding claims 4-5, Burton discloses silver nanoflakes for the conductor, but is silent on the conductor comprising nanowires or one-dimensional structures. Khine teaches a skin contacting electrode that includes conductive material being a one-dimensional conductive nanowire ([0083][0088]-[0089] which details nanowires/nanotubes that can be made of carbon nanotubes or made of various conducting metals). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the material choice as taught by Khine for the conducting material of Burton as they are art recognized equivalents and would have produced predictable results (greater conductivity and flexibility with reduced thickness and weight).
Regarding claim 13, Burton as modified by Zhiguo discloses the transparent electrode (see rejected claim 1 above), but is silent on the exact transmittance. Khine teaches an electrode that allows for a transparent design by utilizing the 1d structure, which can include carbon nanotubes as one of its options, which are known to have a very high light transmittance). With polyurethane having a known light transmittance rate of 88-95% (depending slightly on the method of manufacturing), and the silver flakes of Burton (0-30% transmittance) being replaced by a 1D conducting structures of Khine (80-95% transmittance), the skilled artisan before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to have a light transmittance well over the claimed 65% at 550-700nm range given the combination above, and the motivation to modify Burton/Zhiguo with Khine would be for the same predictable reasons above (greater conductivity and flexibility with reduced thickness and weight).
Conclusion
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