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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species A1, claims 1-5 as amended, drawn to a method for modifying the electrochemical properties of an electronic device in the reply filed on August 11, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (S. Zhang, Patterning of Stretchable Organic Electrochemical Transistors, Chemistry of Materials, 2017(29), pp. 3126-32) in view of Vohra (A. Vohra, Developing the Surface Chemistry of Transparent Butyl Rubber for Impermeable Stretchable Electronics, Langmuir 2016(32), pp. 10206-10212), supported by the document for oxygen permeability calculation.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method for modifying the electrochemical properties of an electronic device (title, [Abstract]), comprising:
providing a stretchable substrate (p. 3126, col. 1, para. 2: organosilicon compound polydimethylsiloxane PDMS) selected from one or more of elastomers (p. 3129, col. 2, para. 2: PDMS elastomer); and
forming a stretchable redox-active layer on the substrate (Fig. 3: PEDOT:PSS patterning; p. 3130, col. 2: stretchable electrochemical transistor featuring a PEDOT:PSS channel which is a PEDOT:PSS gate electrode; thus PEDOT:PSS is redox active), the redox-active layer including one or more of conductive polymers (p. 3127, col. 2, last para.: the conducting polymer PEDOT:PSS).
Zhang does not teach the stretchable substrate having a selected oxygen permeability of 0.1-50 Barrer.
However, Vohra teaches transparent butyl rubber as a new elastomer of the stretchable electronics due to its intrinsically low gas permeability ([Abstract]). Compared to high permeability of PDMS to oxygen that permits oxidation and corrosion of metals and curtails the lifetime of devices, the new elastomer T-IIR possess an intrinsically low gas permeability to protect sensitive device components (p. 10207, col. 1, para. 2). The oxygen permeation rate of T-IIR is 216 ± 3 cc-mm/m2-day (p. 10207, col. 1, para. 2). Based on the calculation (see attached evidential document), 216 cc-mm/m2-day corresponding to 0.219 Barrer, which lies within the recited range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang by adjusting the oxygen permeability of the stretchable substrate within the claimed range as suggested by Vohra because it is known in the art that low oxygen permeability would protect sensitive device components and thus lengthen the lifetime of devices (p. 10207, col. 1, para. 2). In the case where the 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). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the method further including depositing one or more electrodes on the stretchable redox-active layer (Fig. 3(a): Au patterning and PEDOT:PSS patterning; Fig. 3(d): indicating electrodes G, S, D on the PEDOT:PSS layer).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches wherein the electronic device is a bioelectronic device in the form of a bioelectrode, a wearable biosensor or a bioelectronic implant ([Abstract]: wearable electronics, biosensors, and surface electrodes to monitor body conditions).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Vohra, and further in view of Lee (W. Lee, Nonthrombogenic, stretchable, active multielectrode array for electroanatomical mapping, Sci. Adv. 2018(4): eaau2426, pp. 1-7).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Vohra teaches all limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the electronic device has a shape of micro- wires, macro-wires, micro-mesh, macro-mesh, film, micro-3D structure and/or macro-3D structure.
However, Lee teaches a stretchable, active multielectrode array for high precision monitoring of electrophysiological signals with high spatial and temporal resolution (Title, [Abstract]). The stretchable MEA consisting of OECTs and grid substrates is fabricated on a 1.2-m-thick parylene substrate (Fig. 1A; p. 2, col. 1, para. 2), indicating a micro-mesh shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang and Vohra by fabricating the electronic device in a shape of micro-mesh as taught by Lee because the honeycomb grids would show excellent mechanical durability (p. 3, col. 1, para. 1). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Vohra, and further in view of Qi (D. Qi, Stretchable Electronics Based on PDMS Substrates, Adv. Mater. 2021(33): 2003155, pp. 1-25).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Vohra teaches all limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the stretchable substrate is selected from styrene-butadiene rubber, ethylene propylene diene monomer, poly(styrene-ethylene-butylene- styrene), ethylene-vinyl acrylate and/or thermoplastic polyurethane.
However, Qi teaches poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS), Ecoflex, poly(styrene-co-ethylenebutylene-co-styrene) (SEBS), and polyurethane (PU) based elastomers are common candidates for the elastic substrates of stretchable electronics (p. 2, col. 1, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang by substituting PDMS with PU as taught by Qi because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, the substitution of one known element for another would yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights