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 without traverse of Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 21 September 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 December 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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.
1. Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,683,744 to Jolly et al. (“Jolly”) in view of Cheng et al.; A Programmable Dual-Regime Spray for Large-Scale and Custom-Designed Electronic Textiles; Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2108021; (“Cheng”).
With regard to Claims 1, 5, and 9, Jolly teaches a process of forming electrically conductive polymer in-situ on a fabric substrate to fabricate a conductive textile comprising combining monomer solution and oxidizing agent in a mixing chamber and depositing the mixed solution on the substrate through a deposition nozzle (see Abstract; FIG. 1; Col. 2, Lns. 20-33; Col. 2, Ln. 65 through Col. 3, Ln. 4; Col. 4, Lns. 8-11; Col. 4, Ln. 62 through Col. 5, Ln. 6).
Jolly describes separate storage of monomer and oxidizing agent and mixing to initiate polymerization prior to deposition (see FIG. 1; Col. 4, Ln. 62 through Col. 5, Ln. 6); however the reference does not teach atomization of material prior to mixing. Chang is similarly directed to producing conductive textiles, and teaches a dual-regime spray process wherein conductive material is atomized prior to introduction into a mixing chamber (see Abstract; § 2.1; FIG. 1). According to Chang, the disclosed process enables direct custom writing of conductive patterns at sub-millimeter resolution (see Abstract; Pg. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the dual-regime spray process of Chang to combine and deposit conductive polymer in the method of Jolly in order to form custom patterns of conductive material.
With regard to Claims 2 and 10, Chang teaches mixing at a first air flow speed and depositing through the nozzle at a greater air flow speed via application of atomization pressure (see Pg. 2).
With regard to Claims 3 and 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed different pressures to atomize and convey each of the monomer and oxidizing agent throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in obtaining a desired degree of flow for mixing in the process of Jolly in view of Chang.
With regard to Claims 4 and 12, Chang teaches air as a carrier gas and directing the gas through the mixing chamber in a tortuous path prior to entering the deposition nozzle (see FIG. 1).
With regard to Claim 6, Chang teaches forming sensing elements (see Pg. 7, § 3).
With regard to Claim 8, Jolly teaches polypyrrole (see Abstract).
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolly in view of Chang as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 4,803,096 to Kuhn et al. (“Kuhn”).
With regard to Claim 7, Jolly teaches oxidative polymerization of pyrrole monomer via iron (III) chloride (see Abstract); however the reference does not expressly teach iron (III) chloride hexahydrate. Kuhn is similarly directed to production of electrically conductive textile materials, and teaches ferric chloride hexahydrate as an oxidizing agent for polymerization of pyrrole monomer (see Abstract; Col. 14, Lns. 5-19; Col. 21, Lns. 30-41). Jolly is noted as citing Kuhn as teaching known in-situ polymerization techniques (see Jolly at Col. 1, Lns. 26-34). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed iron (III) chloride hexahydrate as an oxidizing agent in the method of Jolly in view of Chang with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights