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 Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 13, --the-- should be inserted before “deposited electrodes”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
The term “considerable” in claim 1, line 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “considerable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes the term “considerable” will be interpreted as any amount of β-phase resulting from the electrospinning process under the claimed conditions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 14, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tayeb et al. (WO2022/157284) also published as US 20240081152 which will be used for citations.
With regard to claim 1, Tayeb et al. discloses a method of making a stretchable transducer, the method comprising placing a polymer solution (paragraph [0020]) having a concentration (it is inherent that any solution will have a concentration) in an injectable vessel 102 having an electrically conductive ejection port (through the needle, paragraph [0016], applying a voltage between the ejection port and an electrically conductive collection plate 106 a predetermined distance away from the ejection port (paragraph [0016] and figure 1), ejecting the polymer solution from the injectable vessel at a flow rate (paragraph [0016]), thereby generating a fibrous material having considerable β-phase on the collection plate due to electrospinning (paragraph [0016]), removing the fibrous material from the collection plate (inherent since the fibrous material will have to be removed from the collector plate prior to the subsequent process steps), depositing conductive electrodes (202 and 206) on top and bottom surfaces of the removed fibrous material, thereby generating a transducer (paragraph [0030] and figure 2), and simultaneously optimizing formation of β-phase of the fibrous material and yield of the transducer based on unwanted electrical current leakage between the deposited electrodes on the top and bottom surfaces based on the concentration, the voltage and the flow rate (paragraphs [0017]-[0019], the different parameters can be optimized to achieve the desired properties and since Tayeb et al. anticipates the method steps, it is inherent that the resulting transducer will also have the claimed properties).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, see paragraphs [0026] and [0030].
Regarding claims 5, 6, 14 and 15, Official Notice is taken in that the claimed depositing methods are old and well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant should note that because the method of Tayeb et al. anticipates the claimed method, it will also result in the fibrous material including strands and beads.
Claim 16, see paragraph [0019].
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.
Claim(s) 4, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tayeb et al. in view of Mokhtari et al. (Investigating of β Phase Formation in Piezoelectric Response of Electrospun Polyvinylidene Fluoride Nanofibers: LiCI Additive and Increasing Fibers Tension).
Regarding claim 4, Although Tayeb et al. does not disclose the polymer solution including Polyvinylidene fluoride or polyvinylidene difluoride however, it is known to use polymer solutions including Polyvinylidene fluoride or polyvinylidene difluoride when forming piezoelectric transducers as attested Mokhtari et al. because of its low cost, high flexibility and biocompatibility, see the first paragraph of page 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included Polyvinylidene fluoride or polyvinylidene difluoride in the polymer solution of Tayeb et al., in light of the teachings of Mokhtari et al., because of its low cost and high flexibility which would e desirable in making stretchable transducers.
Regarding claims 9-11, see third paragraph on page 1 and the Electrospinning Process section on page of Mokhtari et al. Also, as disclosed by Tayeb et al. the different parameters (concentration, voltage flow rate gauge size can be optimized to achieve desired properties in the fibrous material.
Claim(s) 8, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tayeb et al.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Tayeb et al. discloses an applied voltage of between 0.5 to 30 kilovolts (paragraph [0016]) and a flow rate of between 0.1 to 20 milliliters per hour (paragraph [0018) hich encompasses the claimed ranges of about 10 to 25 kilovolts and of about 0.25 mL/h to about 1.75 mL/h. As it has been held, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, as it has been outlined above the percentage of β-phase could be optimized as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/ESSAMA OMGBA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights