DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This action is responsive to the Second Preliminary Amendment filed on 02/18/2025. Claims 1-17 are pending, and have been examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, line 2, the recitation of “wherein the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer” should instead recite --wherein the first polymeric layer and the second polymeric layer-- to be consistent with the recitations in independent claim 10 (from which claim 17 depends).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 3, 5, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. Claim 3 recites the limitation “said adhesive layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this recitation in the claim.
7. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the temperature” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this recitation in the claim.
8. Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the cut-outs of the first polymeric layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this recitation in the claim, as independent claim 10 (from which claim 12 depends) recites that the cut-outs are part of the second polymeric layer.
9. Claim 12 further recites the limitation “the cut-outs of the adhesive layer” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation of “the adhesive layer” in the claim. As such, there is likewise insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation of “the cut-outs of the adhesive layer” as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1, 7-10, 16, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a publication to Lopes et al., entitled “Bi-Phasic Ag-In-Ga Embedded Elastomer Inks for Digitally Printed, Ultra-Stretchable, Multi-Layer Electronics,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 14552-14561, published March 10, 2021, (hereinafter "LOPES") [made of record in Applicant’s 06/12/25 IDS], further in view of a publication to Hsu et al., entitled “A printed physiological monitoring module in e-textile” 2018 International Flexible Electronics Technology Conference (IFETC), © 2018 IEEE (hereinafter “HSU”) [made of record in Applicant’s 06/12/25 IDS].
13. Regarding claim 1, LOPES teaches a method for obtaining a skin electrode patch [pg. 14552 (“Introduction”); pg. 14558 (“Conclusions”) (“In particular, the AgInGa-SIS ink could be utilized for 3D-printed hybrid devices with embedded circuitry, customized e-textile, organ-interfacing bioelectronics”), comprising the steps of:
applying conductive ink [Ag-In-Ga ink - Abstract; pg. 14554 (last full paragraph); & pg. 14558 (“Conclusions”) (“We presented a unique conductive and stretchable ink composed of Ag flakes, liquid Ga–In alloys, and SIS binders that combine the best properties seen in particle-filled conductive composites and LMs”)] to a first polymeric layer [substrate - pg. 14555 (“Results”) (“We demonstrate the printing of stretchable circuits over a variety of substrates, including latex, SIS, and a medical-grade oxygen-permeable wound-dressing adhesive (Tegaderm 3M), which consists of a thin polyurethane membrane coated with an acrylic adhesive”)];
cutting one or more cut-outs [“VIAs”], on a second polymeric layer [“(new layer of Tegaderm”)], for the conductive ink to contact with the skin [see pg. 14555 (“Next, the circuit is printed over the Tegaderm [Figure1e(i)]. Afterward, we remove both linings of a new layer of Tegaderm [Figure1e(ii)] and laminate it over the first layer. Afterward, we create the VIAs using a CO2 laser”)];
arranging as consecutive layers:
the first polymeric layer [pg. 14555 (“Results”) - substrate, e.g., Tegaderm 3M];
the conductive ink [ink composed of Ag flakes, liquid Ga–In alloys, and SIS binders - see pg. 14555 (“Results”), & pg. 14558 (“Conclusions”)] ;
***
the second polymeric layer [new layer of Tegaderm - see pg. 14555 (“Results”)]; and
[assembling] the arranged layers [see pg. 14555 (“Results”)],
wherein the conductive ink is configured to be exposed through said one or more cut-outs to the skin… [as a result of the creation of the VIAs - see pg. 14555 (“Results”)].
A. FLEXIBLE PCB LAYER
LOPES teaches that “[m]odern electronic circuits are composed of a combination of electrodes, sensors, interconnects, microchips, and antennas to support wireless energy harvesting, signal processing, and data transmission. Such circuits typically require complex circuit geometries, including multi-layered circuits with z-axis VIAs” and that “this is a common practice in rigid and flexible Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs)” [see pg. 14558].
LOPES does not, however, explicitly teach provision/arrangement of a flexible printed circuit board (“PCB”) between the conductive ink and the second polymeric layer, as required by the following emphasized limitations:
arranging as consecutive layers:
the first polymeric layer;
the conductive ink;
a flexible printed circuit board (“PCB”); and
the second polymeric layer;
…
wherein the conductive ink is configured to be exposed through said one or more cut-outs to the skin and to connect with the flexible PCB.
HSU, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that it was known for a printed physiological monitoring module to include a Flexible Printed Circuit Board (FPCB) for delivering and calculating (processing) physiological signals [see pg.1 (“Methods”)].
More particularly, HSU teaches a device including, as consecutive arranged layers: (1) a substrate; (2) a sliver conductive ink pattern printed on the substrate; and (3) a FPCB arranged on/over the conductive ink layer [see FIG. 1].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LOPES to include a flexible printed circuit board (“PCB”) disposed on the conductive ink layer and connected thereto, since such a modification would provide the benefit/advantage of providing for the sampling, processing, and/or transmitting of signals acquired by the device. Still further, 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 would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
B. HEAT-PRESSING
Finally, LOPES does not teach that the layers are assembled via:
heat-pressing the arranged layers.
HSU further teaches that it was known to combine layers via a heat-pressing [pg. 2].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of LOPES and HSU such that the device is assembled via heat-pressing of the arranged layers, since such a known fabrication technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as demonstrated by HSU, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known fabrication technique to the known method of LOPES & HSU, and the results would have been entirely predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
14. Regarding claim 7, the combination of LOPES and HSU teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
LOPES further teaches wherein the cutting is performed by a laser [see pg. 14555 (“Results”) (“we create the VIAs using a CO2 laser”)].
15. Regarding claim 8, the combination of LOPES and HSU teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
LOPES further teaches wherein the first polymeric layer and the second polymeric layer are made of thermoplastic polyurethane [see pg. 14555 (“Results”) (“We demonstrate the printing of stretchable circuits over a variety of substrates, including latex, SIS, and a medical-grade oxygen-permeable wound-dressing adhesive (Tegaderm 3M), which consists of a thin polyurethane membrane coated with an acrylic adhesive. To print over Tegaderm, we first remove one of the backing films but leave the other one in place in order to maintain the rigidity of the film. Next, the circuit is printed over the Tegaderm [Figure1e(i)]. Afterward, we remove both linings of a new layer of Tegaderm [Figure1e(ii)] and laminate it over the first layer”)].
16. Regarding claim 9, the combination of LOPES and HSU teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
LOPES further teaches wherein the conductive ink is a Silver—Indium—Gallium—Styrene-Isoprene Copolymer (“Ag—In—Ga-SIS”) ink [e.g., pg. 14558 (“Conclusions”) (“The AgInGa-SIS ink and extrusion-based printing method represents an important step toward a universal approach for the rapid and scalable fabrication of stretchable electronics with complex multi-layer circuit architectures”)].
17. Regarding claim 10, LOPES teaches a skin electrode patch comprising consecutive… layers of:
a first polymeric layer [substrate - pg. 14555 (“Results”) (“We demonstrate the printing of stretchable circuits over a variety of substrates, including latex, SIS, and a medical-grade oxygen-permeable wound-dressing adhesive (Tegaderm 3M), which consists of a thin polyurethane membrane coated with an acrylic adhesive”)];
conductive ink [Ag-In-Ga ink - Abstract; pg. 14554 (last full paragraph); & pg. 14558 (“Conclusions”) (“We presented a unique conductive and stretchable ink composed of Ag flakes, liquid Ga–In alloys, and SIS binders that combine the best properties seen in particle-filled conductive composites and LMs”)];
***
a second polymeric layer [“(new layer of Tegaderm”)- pg. 14555],
wherein the second polymeric layer has one or more cut-outs [“VIAs”] for the conductive ink to contact with the skin [see pg. 14555 (“Next, the circuit is printed over the Tegaderm [Figure1e(i)]. Afterward, we remove both linings of a new layer of Tegaderm [Figure1e(ii)] and laminate it over the first layer. Afterward, we create the VIAs using a CO2 laser”)], and
wherein the conductive ink is configured to be exposed through said one or more cut-outs to the skin… [as a result of the creation of the VIAs - see pg. 14555 (“Results”)].
A. FLEXIBLE PCB LAYER
LOPES teaches that “[m]odern electronic circuits are composed of a combination of electrodes, sensors, interconnects, microchips, and antennas to support wireless energy harvesting, signal processing, and data transmission. Such circuits typically require complex circuit geometries, including multi-layered circuits with z-axis VIAs” and that “this is a common practice in rigid and flexible Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs)” [see pg. 14558].
LOPES does not, however, explicitly teach provision/arrangement of a flexible printed circuit board (“PCB”) between the conductive ink and the second polymeric layer, as required by the following emphasized limitations:
consecutive… layers of:
a first polymeric layer;
conductive ink;
a flexible printed circuit board (“PCB”); and
a second polymeric layer,
…
wherein the conductive ink is configured to be exposed through said one or more cut-outs to the skin and to connect with the flexible PCB.
HSU, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that it was known for a printed physiological monitoring module to include a Flexible Printed Circuit Board (FPCB) for delivering and calculating (processing) physiological signals [see pg.1 (“Methods”)].
More particularly, HSU teaches a device including, as consecutive arranged layers: (1) a substrate; (2) a sliver conductive ink pattern printed on the substrate; and (3) a FPCB arranged on/over the conductive ink layer [see FIG. 1].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LOPES to include a flexible printed circuit board (“PCB”) disposed on the conductive ink layer and connected thereto, since such a modification would provide the benefit/advantage of providing for the sampling, processing, and/or transmitting of signals acquired by the device. Still further, 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 would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
B. HEAT-PRESSED LAYERS
Finally, LOPES does not teach that the layers comprise:
consecutive heat-pressed layers.
However, it is noted that independent claim 10 is a product claim. The recitation of “heat-pressed” is regarded as a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Nonetheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, HSU further teaches that it was known to combine layers via a heat-pressing [pg. 2].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of LOPES and HSU such that the device is assembled via heat-pressing of the arranged layers, since such a known fabrication technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as demonstrated by HSU, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known fabrication technique to the known method of LOPES & HSU, and the results would have been entirely predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
18. Regarding claim 16, the combination of LOPES and HSU teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
LOPES further teaches wherein the conductive ink is a Silver—Indium—Gallium—Styrene-Isoprene Copolymer (Ag—In—Ga-SIS″) ink [e.g., pg. 14558 (“Conclusions”) (“The AgInGa-SIS ink and extrusion-based printing method represents an important step toward a universal approach for the rapid and scalable fabrication of stretchable electronics with complex multi-layer circuit architectures”)].
19. Regarding claim 17, the combination of LOPES and HSU teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
LOPES further teaches wherein the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer are made of thermoplastic polyurethane [see pg. 14555 (“Results”) (“We demonstrate the printing of stretchable circuits over a variety of substrates, including latex, SIS, and a medical-grade oxygen-permeable wound-dressing adhesive (Tegaderm 3M), which consists of a thin polyurethane membrane coated with an acrylic adhesive. To print over Tegaderm, we first remove one of the backing films but leave the other one in place in order to maintain the rigidity of the film. Next, the circuit is printed over the Tegaderm [Figure1e(i)]. Afterward, we remove both linings of a new layer of Tegaderm [Figure1e(ii)] and laminate it over the first layer”)].
20. Claims 2, 3, 11, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LOPES and HSU, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0000378 to Kaplan et al. ("KAPLAN").
21. Regarding claims 2 & 11, the combination of LOPES and HSU teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 & 10, respectively, for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of LOPES and HSU does not, however, teach:
[claims 2 & 11] an adhesive layer on said second polymeric layer, said adhesive layer having one or more cut-outs for the conductive ink to contact with the skin.
KAPLAN, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a device for transmitting and sensing signals, adherable to skin of a subject [Abstract], comprising, inter alia, contacts (14) printed on an inner layer (123) of a substrate (12) using a silver-containing conducting ink [¶[0065]; FIG. 2A]. A printed circuit board (162) is attached to the inner layer (123) [¶[0065]; FIG. 2A].
KAPLAN further teaches a second layer [isolation layer (124)] having an adhesive layer (126) applied thereto [FIG. 2A] along with a removable protective film (34) (i.e., a release sheet/liner) [¶[0066]; FIG. 2A]. Adhesive layer (126) includes cut-outs [openings (127)] aligned with contacts (14), which allow for contact of the conductive ink [of contacts (14)] with skin when protective film (34) is removed [¶’s [0065]-[0066]; FIG. 2A].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of LOPES and HSU to include an adhesive layer on said second polymeric layer [i.e., the layer of LOPES closest to skin], with the adhesive layer having one or more cut-outs for the conductive ink to contact with the skin, all as taught by KAPLAN, since the provision of an adhesive layer would facilitate attachment of the device of LOPES/HSU to skin in a well-known manner, with the cut-outs providing a direct path between the contacts and the skin to ensure better signal acquisition.
22. Regarding claim 3, the combination of LOPES and HSU teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
As best understood [see rejection under § 112(b) above], the combination of LOPES and HSU does not teach an adhesive layer, and therefore fails to teach:
arranging said adhesive layer as a consecutive layer on the second polymeric layer before heat-pressing the arranged layers.
KAPLAN, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a device for transmitting and sensing signals, adherable to skin of a subject [Abstract], comprising, inter alia, contacts (14) printed on an inner layer (123) of a substrate (12) using a silver-containing conducting ink [¶[0065]; FIG. 2A]. A printed circuit board (162) is attached to the inner layer (123) [¶[0065]; FIG. 2A].
KAPLAN further teaches a second layer [isolation layer (124)] having an adhesive layer (126) applied thereto [FIG. 2A] along with a removable protective film (34) (i.e., a release sheet/liner) [¶[0066]; FIG. 2A].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of LOPES and HSU to include an adhesive layer on said second polymeric layer [i.e., the layer of LOPES closest to skin], since the provision of an adhesive layer would facilitate attachment of the device of LOPES/HSU to skin in a well-known manner.
As modified, it would have likewise been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include arranging said adhesive layer as a consecutive layer on the second polymeric layer before heat-pressing the arranged layers, so that the entire device (including all of its constituent layers) can be heat-pressed at one time, thereby eliminating extra steps, and simplifying fabrication.
23. Regarding claim 12, the combination of LOPES and HSU teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
As best understood [see rejections under § 112(b) above], the combination of LOPES and HSU does not teach an adhesive layer, and therefore fails to teach:
wherein the cut-outs of the first polymeric layer correspond to the cut-outs of the adhesive layer.
KAPLAN, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a device for transmitting and sensing signals, adherable to skin of a subject [Abstract], comprising, inter alia, contacts (14) printed on an inner layer (123) of a substrate (12) using a silver-containing conducting ink [¶[0065]; FIG. 2A]. A printed circuit board (162) is attached to the inner layer (123) [¶[0065]; FIG. 2A].
KAPLAN further teaches a second layer [isolation layer (124)] having an adhesive layer (126) applied thereto [FIG. 2A] along with a removable protective film (34) (i.e., a release sheet/liner) [¶[0066]; FIG. 2A]. Adhesive layer (126) includes cut-outs [openings (127)] aligned with contacts (14), which allow for contact of the conductive ink [of contacts (14)] with skin when protective film (34) is removed [¶’s [0065]-[0066]; FIG. 2A].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of LOPES and HSU to include an adhesive layer since the provision of an adhesive layer would facilitate attachment of the device of LOPES/HSU to skin in a well-known manner. Further, the provision of cut-outs provides a direct path between the contacts and the skin to ensure better signal acquisition.
24. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LOPES and HSU, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0413533 to Majidi et al. ("MAJIDI").
25. Regarding claim 4, the combination of LOPES and HSU teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of LOPES and HSU does not, however, teach:
wherein the heat-pressing is performed with a textile heat press.
MAJIDI, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an efficient fabrication technique used to create highly customizable wearable electronics [Abstract], and further teaches that it was known to utilize a hand-iron [broadly, a textile heat press] for a hand-pressing operation [¶[0035]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of LOPES and HSU such that the heat-pressing is performed with a textile heat press, since use of a hand-iron for heat-pressing was a known technique recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as demonstrated by MAJIDI, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to the known method of LOPES/HSU, and results would have been entirely predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
26. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LOPES and HSU, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0340726 to Zhu et al. ("ZHU").
27. Regarding claim 5, the combination of LOPES and HSU teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of LOPES and HSU does not, however, teach:
wherein the temperature of the heat-pressing is at least 150° C.
ZHU, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches stretchable epidermal electronic devices for bipotential sensing [Abstract], and teaches that it was known to heat-press arranged layers at a temperature of 150° C [¶[0079]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of LOPES and HSU to utilize known, art-recognized temperature values for heat-pressing, including, e.g., that the temperature of the heat-pressing is at least 150° C, since heat-pressing at this temperature was a known technique recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as demonstrated by ZHU, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to the known method of LOPES/HSU, and results would have been entirely predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
28. Claims 6 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LOPES and HSU, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0347899 to Bhushan et al. ("BHUSHAN").
29. Regarding claims 6 & 13, the combination of LOPES and HSU teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 & 10, respectively, for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of LOPES and HSU does not, however, teach:
[claim 6] arranging a rigid printed circuit board, on the flexible PCB; or
[claim 13] wherein a rigid printed circuit board, is arranged on the flexible PCB.
BHUSHAN, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wearable device forming a “Biostrip” device for measuring biopotentials [e.g., ¶[0008]].
BHUSHAN further teaches that the Biostrip device may comprise a combination of hard and/or flexible PCBs [see, e.g., ¶[0025] (“In various embodiments, the Biostrip device is fabricated upon a flexible printed circuit board (PCB), or on two or more hard PCBs connected with flexible PCBs (together making up a rigid-flex PCB), or on any combination of flexible or hard PCBs…and at least part of the Biostrip device is flexible, and adapts to almost any surface on the body including the forehead or abdomen or chest of the user”)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of LOPES and HSU to include any combination of flexible or hard PCBs including, e.g., a rigid printed circuit board arranged on the flexible PCB, based on desired clinical and design objectives (e.g., the intended location (body surface) of the user and biopotentials to be acquired, required/desired circuit components (antenna, controller/processor), etc.).
30. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LOPES and HSU, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0167897 to ZALAR et al. ("ZALAR").
31. Regarding claim 14, the combination of LOPES and HSU teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of LOPES and HSU does not, however, teach:
wherein the first polymeric layer and the second polymeric layer has a thickness of 50 μm each.
ZALAR, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method of manufacturing a skin-compatible electrode [e.g., Abstract], and teaches that the substrate (200) may have a thickness preferably in the range between 25 and 200 μm, preferably in a range between 50 and 150 μm, e.g. 75 μm [see ¶[0042] (“Such substrate consists preferably out of an elastomeric based (elastic) film. Preferably, the flexible substrate 200 is a medical grade polyurethane film. Such films provide good breathability and permeation to humidity. Typically examples of suitable materials may be TPU films such as those available from Delstar Technologies, Lubrizol, BASF, and Covestro. The film thickness of the flexible substrate 200 is preferably in the range between 25 and 200 μm, preferably in a range between 50 and 150 μm, e.g. 75 μm”)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of LOPES and HSU such that the first polymeric layer and the second polymeric layer have a known, art-recognized thickness, including, e.g., a thickness of 50 μm each, since such a modification amounts merely to a change in size/dimension, which is an example directed to a common practice which the court has held normally requires only ordinary skill in the art, and is hence considered a routine expedient. For example, in Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
32. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LOPES, HSU, & KAPLAN, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0014783 to SHI et al. ("SHI").
33. Regarding claim 15, the combination of LOPES, HSU, and KAPLAN teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of LOPES, HSU, & KAPLAN does not, however, teach:
wherein the adhesive layer has a thickness of 60 μm.
SHI, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wearable patch for measuring electrical signals from a user’s body [e.g., Abstract], and teaches an adhesive layer having a thickness ranging between 50-500 microns [see ¶[0033]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of LOPES and HSU such that the adhesive layer have a known, art-recognized thickness, including, e.g., a thickness of 60 μm, since such a modification amounts merely to a change in size/dimension, which is an example directed to a common practice which the court has held normally requires only ordinary skill in the art, and is hence considered a routine expedient. For example, in Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Bradford C. Blaise whose telephone number is (571) 272-5617. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM MST.
Examiner Interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. 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, Joanne M. Rodden, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4276. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADFORD C. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights