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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 December 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 “about” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. The limitations “from about 30 to about 85 S/cm” is rendered indefinite by the usage of the term “about”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0190439 A1) (hereinafter Zhamu).
Regarding claim 1, Zhamu teaches an apparatus capable of pressure sensing [apparatus meets structural limitations of the claim and is capable of performing the intended use as a pressure sensor] comprising: assembly comprising: a first fabric electrode [first electrode comprising conductive rod; rod can be conductive polymer fiber or yarn]; a second fabric electrode [second electrode comprises conductive rod; rod can be conductive polymer fiber or yarn]; and a dielectric material disposed between the first fabric electrode and the second fabric electrode [porous separator wrapping around or encasing the first electrode to form a separator-protected first electrode (Para [0029, 0034, 0042, 0103], see Fig. 1B),
at least one of the first fabric electrode and the second fabric electrode comprising (a) a substrate fiber, the substrate fiber defining an outer surface coated with a first plurality of MXene particulates, (b) a yarn comprising a plurality of coating fibers, each coating fiber comprising a substrate fiber defining an outer surface coated with a first plurality of MXene particulates, (c) a yarn comprising a plurality of coating fibers, each coating fiber comprising a substrate fiber defining an outer surface coated with a first plurality of MXene particulates and the yarn defining an outer surface coated with a second plurality of MXene particulates, or (d) a yarn comprising a plurality of fibers, the yarn defining an outer surface coated with a second plurality of MXene particulates [the first or second electrode comprises a conductive rod and the first or second mixture is coated or deposited on the surface of the conductive rod. This rod can be as simple as a metal wire, a conductive polymer fiber or yarn, a carbon or graphite fiber or yarn, or multiple wires, fibers, or yarns. Typically, 35-95% MXene and 5-65% graphene sheets were mixed in a liquid electrolyte and impregnated into pores of conductive porous filaments] (Para [0042, 0194]).
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2014/0092375 A1) (hereinafter Raghavan).
Regarding claim 2, Zhamu as applied to claim 1 above teaches the climaed invention, except for further comprising a meter configured to monitor a capacitance response of the assembly to an applied force. Raghavan teaches a fiber based strain sensor comprising a sensor region and a charge collector configured to monitor a signal of the sensor region related to a strain experienced by the panel (Para [0020, 0049, 0057]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Zhamu with Raghavan such to further comprise a meter configured to monitor a capacitance response of the assembly to an applied force, in order to monitor strain of the coated yarn/fiber while coated to be electrically conductive.
Regarding claim 4, Zhamu in view of Raghavan as applied to claim 2 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the yarn comprises any one or more of cotton, linen, or bamboo [cellulose] (see Zhamu Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, Zhamu in view of Raghavan as applied to claim 2 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the yarn comprises any one or more of modal, regenerated cellulose, nylon, polyester, or viscose (see Zhamu Table 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Raghavan, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ghidiu et al. (WO 2016/049109 A2) (hereinafter Ghidiu) (cited in IDS dated 14 March 2025).
As best understood regarding claim 6, Zhamu in view of Raghavan as applied to claim 2 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the yarn has a conductivity of from 30 to 150 S/cm. Ghidiu teaches conductive MXene compositions wherein the yarn is characterized as having a conductivity of from 30 to 150 S/cm (Para [0059, 0070]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Zhamu in view of Raghavan with Ghidiu such that the yarn has a conductivity from 30 to 150 S/cm in order to retain high enough conductivity for sensor purposes. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admission of Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA).
Regarding claims 8-10, Zhamu as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein flexible and shape-conforming power sources can enable development of wearable devices and biomedical sensors and that the conductive yarn is knittable (Zhamu Para [0002, 0118]). Zhamu fails to teach wherein at least one of the first fabric electrode and the second fabric electrode comprises a single jersey pattern, a half gauge pattern, or an interlock pattern. AAPA teaches that different stitch patterns that are commonly used in knitted fabrics include single jersey, half-gauge, and interlock patterns (Para [0011], see Fig. 3a-c). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Zhamu with AAPA such that at least one of the first fabric electrode and the second fabric electrode comprises a single jersey pattern, a half gauge pattern, or an interlock pattern, in order to knit the yarn together to form a wearable device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art reference Zhamu teaches a method comprising contacting a yarn with a population of MXene particulates having an average cross-sectional dimension, knitting the yarn into a first fabric electrode; and incorporating the first fabric electrode into an assembly (see rejection of Claim 1 above). The prior art fails to teach or provide motivation for contacting the yarn with a population of MXene particulates having a second average cross-sectional dimension, the second average cross-sectional dimension being smaller than the first average cross-sectional dimension, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in the claim.
Regarding claims 12-14, they are dependent on claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, the closest prior art reference Zhamu teaches a component comprising a yarn comprising a plurality of coating fibers, each coating fiber comprising a substrate fiber defining an outer surface coated with a first plurality of MXene particulates having a first average cross-sectional dimension (see rejection of Claim 1 above). The prior art fails to teach or provide motivation for the yarn further comprising a second plurality of MXene particulates having a second average cross-sectional diameter and being infiltrated between coating fibers, the first average cross-sectional dimension being larger than the second average cross-sectional dimension, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 3 and 7 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations regarding wherein the first fabric electrode comprises a yarn comprising a plurality of coating fibers, each coating fiber comprising a substrate fiber defining an outer surface coated with a first plurality of MXene particulates having a first average cross- sectional dimension, the yarn further comprising a second plurality of MXene particulates having a second average cross-sectional dimension and being infiltrated between coating fibers, the first average cross-sectional dimension being larger than the second average cross-sectional dimension, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in claim 1, from which it depends upon.
Regarding claim 7, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations regarding wherein the second fabric electrode comprises a yarn comprising a plurality of coating fibers, each coating fiber comprising a substrate fiber defining an outer surface coated with coating MXene particulates having an average cross- sectional dimension, the yarn further comprising infiltrate MXene particulates having an average cross-sectional dimension and being infiltrated between coating fibers, the average cross- sectional dimension of the coating MXene particulates being larger than the average cross- sectional dimension of the infiltrate MXene particulates, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in claim 1, from which it depends upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855