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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election
1. Applicant’s election of claims 1-10, without traverse, in the reply filed on July 31, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 11, 2025, and September 20, 2024, have been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
3. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (CN 115802767 A).
Deng discloses an ion-gel electrolyte layer (6) an upper electrode layer (4) a lower electrode layer(2) that comprises a double layer (paragraph 36). Deng discloses electrode film surfaces with micro-cracks, obtaining micro-crack metal electrodes (paragraph 27). Although Deng does not disclose the upper electrode layer has a double layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the upper electrode layer to function as a protective layer of the electrode article, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), as in claim 1.
Concerning claim 7, Deng discloses an electrode comprising gold (paragraphs 26-27). Although Deng does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the metal layer,
thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim Objection
5. Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited stretchable composite electrode further including the ion-gel layer comprises a mixture of an ionic liquid and a polymer binder, the ionic liquid comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of 1-ethyl-3- methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ([EMIM][TFSI]), 1-butyl-3- methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ([BMIM][TFSI]), 1-butyl-3- methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ([BMIM][PF₆]), 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate ([EMIM][BF4]), 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate ([BMIM][BF₄]), 1-butyl-1-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ([BMPYR][TFSI]), 1-butyl-1-methylpyrrolidinium tris(pentafluoroethyl)trifluorophosphate ([BMPYR][FAP]), 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium tris(pentafluoroethyl)trifluorophosphate ([EMIM][FAP]), 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide ([EMIM][FSI]), and cthyl-dimethyl-propylammonium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ([EDMPA][TFSI]).
The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited stretchable composite electrode further including where the double layer of each of the upper electrode layer and the lower electrode layer comprises a first metal particle/polymer layer and a second metal particle/polymer layer. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited stretchable composite electrode further including where each of the upper electrode layer and the lower electrode layer further comprises an clastic substrate, and the clastic substrate of each of the upper electrode layer and the lower electrode layer comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), fluoroelastomer, a poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) copolymer, thermosetting polyurethane, silicone, Ecoflex, and Dragon skin.
The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited stretchable composite electrode further including when an amount of metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer is less than 75 wt%, the stretchable composite electrode has an impedance of 10⁶ ohms (Ω) to 10⁷ Ω in a frequency range of 10° hertz (Hz) to 10² Hz, when the amount of the metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer is greater than or equal to 75 wt% and less than or equal to 80 wt%, the impedance of 10⁶ Ω to 10⁷ Ω is maintained in the frequency range of 10⁰ Hz to 10² Hz, and when the amount of the metal particles in the first metal particle/polymer layer exceeds 80 wt%, the impedance is in a range of 10⁶ Ω to 10⁹ Ω in the frequency range of 10° Hz to 10² Hz.
The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited stretchable composite electrode further including a strain of 10% to 60% is obtained in a strain-positive response and a strain-negative response, a variation in an impedance of the stretchable composite electrode is similar to a strain-neutral change in a frequency range of 10° Hz to 10⁶ Hz.
The prior art does not teach motivation or suggestion for modification to make the invention as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
