Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 10825787"

See other formats


Application No.: 10/825,787 

REMARKS/ARGUMENTS 

The Office Action mailed July 26, 2006 has been carefully reviewed. 
Reconsideration of this application, as amended and in view of the following 
remarks, is respectfully requested. Claims 1-51 originally appeared in the 
application. Claims 2-4, 6-9, 13-17, 19, 21-23, 25-28, 31-34, 36, 38-49, and 51 are 
withdrawn from consideration in a response to a restriction requirement. The 
claims presented for examination are: claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 18, 20, 24, 29, 30, 35, 37, 
and 50. 

A pplicants' Claimed Invention 

Applicants' claimed invention provides a stretchable electronic circuit, 
electronic device, and process to produce a circuit or electronic device. The 
stretchable electroruc circuit, electronic device, and process to produce a circuit 
or electronic device include a solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of 
poly (dime thy Isiloxane). At least one microcharmel is formed in the solid 
stretchable polymer body. The microcharmel has a longitudinal component that 
extends in the longitudinal direction and an offset component that is at an angle 
to the longitudinal direction. A conductive media is contained in the 
microcharmel. The microcharmel and conductive media form a circuit line having 
a longitudinal component that extends in the longitudinal direction and an offset 
component that is at an angle to the longitudinal direction. The longitudinal 
component and the offset component allow the apparatus to stretch in the 
longitudinal direction while maintaining the integrity of the circuit line. The FIG. 
3 embodiment of Applicants' claimed invention is show below. 



-10- 




JPIG.3 

Applicants' claimed invention provides a stretchable electronic circuit or 
electronic device and a polymer-based procjess to produce a circuit or electronic 
device that has use in implantable biomedical microdevices. 

Double Patenting - Claims 1. 10. 18. 35, and 37 

In numbered paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Office Action mailed July 26, 
2006, claims 1, 10, 18, 35, and 37 were provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 
as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 7, 12, 15, and 17, of copending 
Apphcation No. 10/826,477. 

Applicants' invention claimed in amended claims 1, 10, 18, 35, and 37 is 
not the same invention as that of claims 1, 7, 12, 15, and 17 of copending 
Application No. 10/826,477. For example Applicants' invention claimed in 
amended claims 1, 10, 18, 35, and 37 includes "a solid stretchable polymer body 
. made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane)," "at least one naicrocharmel in said 
solid stretchable polymer body," and "a conductive media contained in said at 
least one microchannel." 

Double Patenting - Claims 20 and 29 

In numbered paragraph 5 of the Office Action mailed July 26, 2006, claims 
20 and 29 were provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 
of copending Application No. 10/826,477. 



-11- 



Applicants' believe that the invention claimed in amended claims 20 and 
29 is patentable over claims 1 and 7 of copending Application No. 10/826,477. 
Applicants' invention claimed in amended claims 20 and 29 includes "a solid 
flexible polymer body made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), said solid 
stretchable polymer body made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane) having a 
polymer body longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central longitudinal 
axis of the circuit/' and "at least one microchannel in said solid stretchable 
polymer body made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), said at least one 
microchannel having a microchannel longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the 
central longitudinal axis of the apparatus, a longitudinal component that extends 
in the longitudinal direction, and an offset component that is at an angle to the 
longitudinal direction," and "a conductive media contained in said at least one 
microchannel, wherein said at least one microchannel and said conductive media 
form at least one circuit line operatively connected to said flexible polymer 
substrate, said at least one circuit line having a component that is aligned with 
the central longitudinal axis of the circuit and wherein said longitudinal 
component and said offset component allowing the circuit to stretch in the 
longitudinal direction while maintaining the integrity of said at least one circuit 
line. Claims 1 and 7 of copending Application No. 10/826,477 do not show or 
suggest these claim elements. 

35 U.S.C, S102 Rejection - Istook 

In numbered paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Office Action mailed July 26, 
2006, claims 1, 5, 18, 20, 24, 35, and 50 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as 
being anticipated by the Istook reference (U.S. Patent No. 6,341,504). 

Applicant believes the invention claimed in amended claims 1, 5, 18, 20, 24, 35, 
and 50 is not anticipated by the Istook reference. The standard for a 35 U.S.C. §102 
rejection is stated in RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Systems. Inc, 221PQ 385, 388 (d. 

-12- 



Cir. 1984) "Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference 

discloses, either expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element 

of a claimed invention." 

Applicants point out that the following elements of Applicants' amended 

claim 1 and other rejected apparatus claims are not found in the Istook reference: 

"a solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), 
said solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane) 
having a polymer body longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central 
longitudinal axis of the apparatus/' or 

"at least one microchannel in said solid stretchable polymer body made 
entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), said at least one microchannel having a 
microchannel longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central longitudinal 
axis of the apparatus, a longitudinal component that extends in the 
longitudinal direction, and an offset component that is at an angle to the 
longitudinal direction," or 

"a conducHve media contained in said at least one microchannel, wherein said 
at least one microchannel and said conductive media form at least one circuit 
line operatively connected to said solid stretchable polymer body made 
entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), said at least one circuit line extending in 
the longitudinal direction and having a longitudinal component that extends 
in the longitudinal direction and having an offset component that is at an 
angle to the longitudinal direction, said longitudinal component and said 
offset component allowing the apparatus to stretch in the longitudinal 
direction while maintaining the integrity of said at least one circuit line." 

Applicants also point out that the following steps of Applicants' amended 

claim 35 and other rejected method claims are not found in the Istook reference: 

"providing a solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of 
poly(dimethylsiloxane)," or 

"assuring that said solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of 
poly(dimethylsiloxane) has a polymer body longitudinal axis that is 
concurrent with the central longitudinal axis of the electronic device;" or 

"providing at least one microchannel in said solid stretchable polymer body 
made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane) with said at least one microchannel 
having a microchannel longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central 



-13- 



longitudinal axis of the device, a longitudinal component that extends in the 
longitudinal direction, and an offset component that is at an angle to the 
longitudinal direction," or 

"filling said at least one microchannel with a conductive media to assure that 
said stretchable polymer body? has a circuit line longitudinal component that 
extends in the longitudinal direction," or 

"said stretchable polymer body has a circuit line offset component that is at an 
angle to the longitudinal direction," or 

"said longitudinal component and said offset component allowing the device 
to stretch in the longitudinal direction while maintaining the integrity of said 
circuit line longitudinal component and said circuit line offset component." 

Since the elements and steps described above are not found in the Istook 
reference, the Istook reference does not support a 35 U.S.C. §102(b) rejection of 
Applicants' amended claims 1, 5, 18, 20, 24, 35, and 50 and the rejection should be 
withdrawn. 

35 U.S.C. S102 Rejection - Albert et al 

In numbered paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Office Action mailed July 26, 
2006, Claims 1, 11, 20, 30, and 35 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being 
anticipated by Albert et al (U.S. Published Patent No. 2003/0020844). 

Albert et al Reference 2003/0020844 

The Albert et al reference shows an electronic display 100. The display 100 
can employ various materials. The flexible substrate 140 can comprise a polyester 
sheet with electrical cormections 123 formed of copper by conventional 
patterning techniques. Alternatively, the electrical connections 123 can be printed 
with silver ink or carbon ink. The electrical cormections can be coated by printing 
with a dielectric, for example a polymer. Vias through the dielectric can provide 
for electrical contact to a display element 110. Each electrical connection 123 is in 
communication with a first contact pad 121 and a second contact pad 122. 
Further, each first contact pad 121 is in electrical communication with one of the 



-14- 



display elements 110 while each of the second contact pads 122 is in electrical 
communication with the driver chip 131. The driver chip 131 is in electrical 
communication with other contact pads 151 to provide for electrical 
communication with other IC's (not shown) of the control circuit 130. 
The Albert et al Reference Does Not Anticipate 

The Albert et al reference does not anticipate Applicants' invention claimed in 
amended claims 1, 11, 20, 30, and 35. The standard for a 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection is 
^stated in RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Systems. Inc, 221PQ 385, 388 (d. Cir. 1984) 
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either 
expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed 
invention." 

Applicants point out that the following elements of Applicants' amended 
claim 1 and other rejected apparatus claims are not found in the Albert et al 
reference: 

"a solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), 
said solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane) 
having a polymer body longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central 
longitudinal axis of the apparatus/' or 

"at least one microchannel in said solid stretchable polymer body made 
entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), said at least one microchannel having a 
microcharmel longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central longitudinal 
axis of the apparatus, a longitudinal component that extends in the 
longitudinal direction, and an offset component that is at an angle to the 
longitudinal direction," or 

"a conductive media contained in said at least one microchannel, wherein said 
at least one microchannel and said conductive media form at least one circuit 
line operatively connected to said solid stretchable polymer body made 
entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), said at least one circuit line extending in 
the longitudinal direction and having a longitudinal component that extends 
in the longitudinal direction and having an offset component that is at an 
angle to the longitudinal direction, said longitudinal component and said 
offset component allowing the apparatus to stretch in the longitudinal 
direction while maintaining the integrity of said at least one circuit line/' 

-15- 



Applicants also point out that the following steps of Applicants' amended 

claim 35 and other rejected method claims are not found in the Albert et al reference: 

"providing a solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of 
poly(dimethylsiloxane)/' or 

"assuring that said solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of 
poly(dimethylsiloxane) has a polymer body longitudinal axis that is 
concurrent with the central longitudinal axis of the electronic device;" or 

"providing at least one microchannel in said solid stretchable polymer body 
made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane) with said at least one microchannel 
having a microchannel longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central 
longitudinal axis of the device, a longitudinal component that extends in the 
longitudinal direction, and an offset component that is at an angle to the 
longitudinal direction," or 

"filling said at least one microchannel with a conductive media to assure that 
said stretchable polymer bodyj has a circuit line longitudinal component that 
extends in the longitudinal direction," or 

"said stretchable polymer body has a circuit line offset component that is at an 
angle to the longitudinal direction," or 

"said longitudinal component and said offset component allowing the device 
to stretch in the longitudinal direction while maintaining the integrity of said 
circuit line longitudinal component and said circuit line offset component." 

Since the elements and steps described above are not found in the Albert 
et al reference, the Albert et al reference does not support a 35 U.S.C. §102(b) 
rejection of Applicants' amended claims 1, 11, 20, 30, and 35 and the rejection 
should be withdrawn. 

35 U.S.C. S103 Rejection - Istook 

In numbered paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Office Action mailed July 26, 
2006, claims 10, 29, and 37 were rejected imder 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being 
unpatentable over Istook (U.S. Patent No. 6,341,504). 



-16- 



Applicant believes the invention claimed in amended claims 10, 29, and 37 
is patentable over the Istook reference. 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(a) 
include ''Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at 
issue." 

The differences between the Istook reference and Applicants' invention 
defined by amended independent claims 1, 20, and 35 and incorporated in claims 
10, 29, and 37 includes the fact that the following elements of amended 
independent claims 1, 20, and 35 are not found in the Istook reference: 

Applicants point out that the following elements of Applicants' amended 
claim 1 and other rejected apparatus claims are not found in the Istook reference: 

"a solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), 
said solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane) 
having a polymer body longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central 
longitudinal axis of the apparatus," or 

"at least one microchannel in said solid stretchable polymer body made 
entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), said at least one microchannel having a 
microchaimel longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central longitudinal 
axis of the apparatus, a longitudinal component that extends in the 
longitudinal direction, and an offset component that is at an angle to the 
longitudinal direction," or 

"a conductive media contained in said at least one microcharmel, wherein said 
at least one microchannel and said conductive media form at least one circuit 
line operatively connected to said solid stretchable polymer body made 
entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), said at least one circuit line extending in 
the longitudinal direction and having a longitudinal component that extends 
in the longitudinal direction and having an offset component that is at an 
angle to the longitudinal direction, said longitudinal component and said 
offset component allowing the apparatus to stretch in the longitudinal 
direction while maintaining the integrity of said at least one circuit line." 



-17- 



Applicants also point out that the following steps of Applicants' amended 

claim 35 and other rejected method claims are not found in the Istook reference: 

"providing a solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of 
poly(dimethylsiloxane)/' or 

"assuring that said solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of 
poly(dimethylsiloxane) has a polymer body longitudinal axis that is 
concurrent with the central longitudinal axis of the electronic device;" or 

"providing at least one microchannel in said solid stretchable polymer body 
made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane) with said at least one microchannel 
having a microchannel longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central 
longitudinal axis of the device, a longitudinal component that extends in the 
longitudinal direction, and an offset component that is at an angle to the 
longitudinal direction," or 

"filling said at least one microchannel with a conductive media to assure that 
said stretchable polymer body; has a circuit line longitudinal component that 
extends in the longitudinal direction," or 

"said stretchable polymer body has a circuit line offset component that is at an 
angle to the longitudinal direction," or 

"said longitudinal component and said offset component allowing the device 
to stretch in the longitudinal direction while maintaining the integrity of said 
circuit line longitudinal component and said circuit line offset component." 

Since the Istook reference lacks the above identified elements of 
applicants' claims 10, 29, and 37 and there is not a showing or suggestion of 
Applicants' claim elements, a 35 U.S.C. §103(a) rejection of Applicant's claims is 
not be appropriate and the rejection should be withdrawn. 

35 U.S.C. §103 Rejection - Albert et al 

In numbered paragraph 14 of the Office Action mailed July 26, 2006, 
claims 10, 29, and 37 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable 
over Albert et al (U.S. Published Patent No. 2003/0020844). 



-18- 



Applicant believes the invention claimed in amended claims 10, 29, and 37 
is patentable over the Albert et al reference. 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(a) 
include "Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at 
issue." 

The differences between the Albert et al reference and Applicants' 
invention defined by amended independent claims 1, 20, and 35 and 
incorporated in claims 10, 29, and 37 includes the fact that the following elements 
of amended independent claims 1, 20, and 35 are not found in the Albert et al 
reference: 

Applicants point out that the following elements of Applicants' amended 
claim 1 and other rejected apparatus claims are not found in the Istook reference: 

"a solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), 
said solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane) 
having a polymer body longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central 
longitudinal axis of the apparatus/' or 

"at least one microcharmel in said solid stretchable polymer body made 
entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), said at least one microcharmel having a 
microcharmel longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central longitudinal 
axis of the apparatus, a longitudinal component that extends in the 
longitudinal direction, and an offset component that is at an angle to the 
longitudinal direction," or 

"a conductive media contained in said at least one microchannel, wherein said 
at least one microchannel and said conductive media form at least one circuit 
line operatively cormected to said solid stretchable polymer body made 
entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane), said at least one circuit line extending in 
the longitudinal direction and having a longitudinal component that extends 
in the longitudinal direction and having an offset component that is at an 
angle to the longitudinal direction, said longitudinal component and said 
offset component allowing the apparatus to stretch in the longitudinal 
direction while maintaining the integrity of said at least one circuit line." 



-19- 



Applicants also point out that the following steps of Applicants' amended 

claim 35 and other rejected method claims are not found in the Istook reference: 

"providing a solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of 
poly(dimethylsiloxane)/' or 

"assuring that said solid stretchable polymer body made entirely of 
poly(dimethylsiloxane) has a polymer body longitudinal axis that is 
concurrent with the central longitudinal axis of the electronic device;" or 

"providing at least one microchannel in said solid stretchable polymer body 
made entirely of poly(dimethylsiloxane) with said at least one microchannel 
having a microchannel longitudinal axis that is concurrent with the central 
longitudinal axis of the device, a longitudinal component that extends in the 
longitudinal direction, and an offset component that is at an angle to the 
longitudinal direction," or 

"filling said at least one microchannel with a conductive media to assure that 
said stretchable polymer body? has a circuit line longitudinal component that 

extends in the longitudinal direction," or 

"said stretchable polymer body has a circuit line offset component that is at an 
angle to the longitudinal direction," or 

"said longitudinal component and said offset component allowing the device 
to stretch in the longitudinal direction while maintaining the integrity of said 
circuit line longitudinal component and said circuit line offset component." 

Since the Albert et al reference lacks the above identified elements of 
applicants' claims 10, 29, and 37 and there is not a showing or suggestion of 
Applicants' claim elements, a 35 U.S.C. §1 03(a) rejection of Applicant's claims is 
not be appropriate and the rejection should be withdrawn. 



-20- 



Application No.: 10/825,787 



SUMMARY 



The undersigned respectfully submits that, in view of the foregoing 
amendments and the foregoing remarks, the rejections of the claims raised in the 
Office Action dated July 26, 2006 have been fully addressed and overcome, and 



respectfully requested that this application be reconsidered, that the claims be 
allowed, and that this case be passed to issue. If it is believed that a telephone 
conversation would expedite the prosecution of the present application, or clarify 
matters with regard to its allowance, the Examiner is invited to call the 
undersigned attorney at (925) 424-6897. 



the present application is believed to be in condition for allowance. It is 



Respectfully submitted. 




Eddie E. Scott 



Attorney for Applicant 
Registration No. 25,220 
Tel. No. (925) 424-6897 



Dated: ^/w i^ ^^ 



Livermore, California 



-21-