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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 26, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 14, 21-24, 29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton-Sweeney (U.S. Patent Pub. 2019/0049400) in view of Vu (U.S. Patent Pub. 2019/0004004), and further in view of Seal (U.S. Patent Pub. 2009/0071848), and further in view of Wu (B. Wu, Noble metal nanoparticles/carbon nanotubes nanohybrids: Synthesis and applications, Nano Today 2011(6), pp. 75-90).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Barton-Sweeney teaches a sensor (¶8: a sensor) comprising:
an electrode (¶8: a working electrode);
a carbon-based substrate on the electrode (¶8: having a surface comprising a nanocomposite comprising carbon nanoparticles and noble metal nanoparticles); and
metal oxide nanoparticles (¶8: having a surface comprising a nanocomposite comprising carbon nanoparticles and noble metal nanoparticles; ¶49: the metal nanoparticles can include titanium oxide, zinc oxide, silicon oxide, europium oxide, or iron oxide; ¶20: the carbon nanoparticles can be of any suitable form, for example, carbon nanotubes (single-wall or multi-wall), graphene, fullerenes, diamond, carbon quantum dots, graphene quantum dots, or carbon nanofibers or a combination);
wherein the carbon-based substrate comprises a conductive amorphous carbon and does not include graphene oxide (¶20: the carbon nanoparticles can be graphitic in structure, such as flat, disk-shaped, or irregularly shaped; here the irregularly shaped graphitic structure of carbon nanoparticles is amorphous, and the graphitic carbon nanoparticles are conductive, which does not include graphene oxide); and (for claim 14)
wherein the electrode is a working electrode (¶8: working electrode), the sensor further comprising:
a counter electrode (¶31: may utilize additional electrode, such as a counter electrode).
Barton-Sweeney does not explicitly disclose a sheath having a distal end; a plurality of curved ridges extending a distance beyond the distal end; a sensing area bounded within the curved ridges; and the electrode in the sensing area (claim 10) or an opening between the plurality of curved ridges, wherein the opening is configured to permit a fluid to flow into the sensing area while each of the plurality of curved ridges is contacting a surface of the object (claim 14).
However, Vu teaches a solid-state electrodes comprising redox active surface areas for use in analyte sensing devices ([Abstract] lines 1-2). The sensor (Fig. 8A; [0085] line 2: an analyte sensing device 80) has a sheath (Fig. 8A; ¶853: handle 75) having a distal end (Fig. 8A: the right end with electrodes); a plurality of curved ridges extending a distance beyond the distal end (Fig. 8A: indicating two curved ridges, i.e., WE 82 and IE 83, extending a distance beyond the body of the analyte sensing device and partially encircle the sensing area); a sensing area bounded within the curved ridges (Fig. 8A: the area inside WE 82 and IE 83); and the electrode in the sensing area (Fig. 8A: RE 81 is in the sensing area defined by WE 82 and IE 83). Further, an opening is between WE 82 and IE 83, i.e., the plurality of curved ridges (Fig. 8A) so that the fluid would be able to flow into the sensing area surrounded by the curved ridges while the ridges contact the surface of the object to be sensed (see Fig. 9A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney by adopting the electrode configuration having a sheath, a sensing area at the distal end, at least two curved ridges surrounding a sensing area and an electrode as taught by Vu because it is a suitable electrode configuration having a redox active surface area for analyte sensing. Examiner notes here it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to swap the working electrode (i.e., WE 82 and IE 83) with the reference electrode (i.e., RE 81) in the electrode configuration because it is an obvious matter of design choice by rearranging the electrodes. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). As a result, the combined Barton-Sweeney and Vu would result in the working electrode in the sensing area surrounded by the reference electrode. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The designations “wherein the curved ridges are configured to keep the sensing area the distance away from an object to be sensed” (claim 1) and “wherein the opening is configured to permit a fluid to flow into the sensing area while each of the plurality of curved ridges is contacting a surface of the object” (claim 14) are deemed to be functional limitations in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Barton-Sweeney does not explicitly disclose the metal nanoparticles are cerium oxide nanoparticles, wherein the cerium oxide nanoparticles comprise a ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV) of at least 0.4.
However, Seal teaches a working electrode having a coating layer comprising a plurality of cerium oxide nanoparticles ([0012] lines 3-5). Cerium oxide includes both ceric oxide and cerous oxide ([0024] line 3). Cerium of valence +3 is generally referred to as cerous, while with valence +4 is generally referred to as ceric ([0024] lines 1-2). An average cerium oxide nanoparticle size in the range <20 nm provides an unexpected and highly beneficial result which is believed to be based on an increased percentage of +3 valence states (relative to the generally more numerous +4 states) on the cerium oxide nanoparticles surface ([0025] lines 4-9). The presence of a relative high percentage of +3 valence states has been found to significantly improve performance of sensors ([0025] lines 11-13), rendering the ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV), i.e., the percentage of +3 valence states (relative to the generally more numerous +4 states), a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney by substituting its metal oxide nanoparticles with the cerium oxide nanoparticles having cerium of valence +3 and valence +4 as taught by Seal. The suggestion for doing so would have been that cerium oxide nanoparticles having cerium of valence +3 and valence +4 is a suitable material for electrode coating and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to this substitution because an increased percentage of +3 valence states (relative to the generally more numerous +4 states) on the cerium oxide nanoparticles surface has been found to significantly improve performance of sensors ([0025] lines 6-9, 11-13). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney and Seal by adjusting the ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV) of the cerium oxide nanoparticles within the claimed range because the ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV) is a result-effective variable and can be optimized through routine experimentation to improve performance of sensors. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Barton-Sweeney and Seal do not explicitly disclose the cerium oxide nanoparticles directly anchored to the carbon-based substrate through carboxylic groups.
However, Wu teaches synthesis of noble metal nanoparticles/carbon nanotubes nanohybrids for biosensors ([Summary]). The most common covalent functionalization involves the addition of carbonyl and carboxyl groups onto the CNT surface, providing nucleation sites for the deposition of noble metal NPs on the surface of CNTs and dispersion of noble metal NPs on the surface of carbonyl and carboxyl functionalized CNTs (p. 80, col. 1, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney by incorporating carboxylic groups to directly anchor the cerium oxide nanoparticles to the carbon-based substrate as taught by Wu because it is a known method in the art and applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(D).
Regarding claim 12, Barton-Sweeney, Vu, Seal, and Wu disclose all limitations of claim 10 as applied to claim 10. Barton-Sweeney, Vu, Seal, and Wu do not explicitly disclose wherein the cerium oxide nanoparticles have an average size of about 3 nm.
However, Seal teaches a working electrode having a coating layer comprising a plurality of cerium oxide nanoparticles ([0012] lines 3-5). The cerium oxide nanoparticles have an average particle size <20 nm, for example 3 to 7 nm ([0025] lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney, Vu, Seal, and Wu by adjusting the average size of the cerium oxide nanoparticles as claimed as suggested by Seal because it is a suitable average size of cerium oxide nanoparticles for modifying electrochemical electrode. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 21, Barton-Sweeney teaches wherein the conductive amorphous carbon comprises a functionalized surface, the functionalized surface comprising the carboxyl groups (¶21: the carbon nanoparticles can be modified with a hydrophobic compound containing a carboxylic group). Examiner notes here that the amorphous carbon nanoparticles can be functionalized with carboxylic group and thus would be capable of anchoring the cerium oxide nanoparticles on the carbon-based substrate.
Regarding claims 22-24, Barton-Sweeney, Vu, Seal, and Wu disclose all limitations of claim 10 as applied to claim 10. Barton-Sweeney, Seal, and Wu do not disclose wherein the ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV) is 43.42:56.58 (claim 22) or wherein the ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV) is 42.52:57.48 (claim 23) or wherein the ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV) is 28.96:71.04 (claim 24).
However, Seal teaches a working electrode having a coating layer comprising a plurality of cerium oxide nanoparticles ([0012] lines 3-5). Cerium oxide includes both ceric oxide and cerous oxide ([0024] line 3). Cerium of valence +3 is generally referred to as cerous, while with valence +4 is generally referred to as ceric ([0024] lines 1-2). An average cerium oxide nanoparticle size in the range <20 nm provides an unexpected and highly beneficial result which is believed to be based on an increased percentage of +3 valence states (relative to the generally more numerous +4 states) on the cerium oxide nanoparticles surface ([0025] lines 4-9). The presence of a relative high percentage of +3 valence states has been found to significantly improve performance of sensors ([0025] lines 11-13), rendering the ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV), i.e., the percentage of +3 valence states (relative to the generally more numerous +4 states), a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney and Seal by adjusting the ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV) within the claimed ranges in claims 22-24 because the ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV) is a result-effective variable and can be optimized through routine experimentation to improve performance of sensors. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 29, Barton-Sweeney teaches wherein the carbon-based substrate does not include graphene (¶20: the carbon nanoparticles can be graphitic in structure, such as flat, disk-shaped, or irregularly shaped, which does not include graphene).
Regarding claim 31, Barton-Sweeney teaches a sensor (¶8: a sensor) comprising:
an electrode (¶8: a working electrode);
a carbon-based substrate on the electrode (¶8: having a surface comprising a nanocomposite comprising carbon nanoparticles and noble metal nanoparticles); and
metal oxide nanoparticles (¶8: having a surface comprising a nanocomposite comprising carbon nanoparticles and noble metal nanoparticles; ¶49: the metal nanoparticles can include titanium oxide, zinc oxide, silicon oxide, europium oxide, or iron oxide; ¶20: the carbon nanoparticles can be of any suitable form, for example, carbon nanotubes (single-wall or multi-wall), graphene, fullerenes, diamond, carbon quantum dots, graphene quantum dots, or carbon nanofibers or a combination); and
wherein the carbon-based substrate comprises a conductive amorphous carbon and does not include graphene oxide (¶20: the carbon nanoparticles can be graphitic in structure, such as flat, disk-shaped, or irregularly shaped; here the irregularly shaped graphitic structure of carbon nanoparticles is amorphous, and the graphitic carbon nanoparticles are conductive, which does not include graphene oxide).
Barton-Sweeney does not explicitly disclose a sheath having a distal end; a plurality of curved ridges extending a distance beyond the distal end; or the electrode at the distal end.
However, Vu teaches a solid-state electrodes comprising redox active surface areas for use in analyte sensing devices ([Abstract] lines 1-2). The sensor (Fig. 8A; [0085] line 2: an analyte sensing device 80) has a sheath (Fig. 8A; ¶853: handle 75) having a distal end (Fig. 8A: the right end with electrodes); a plurality of curved ridges extending a distance beyond the distal end (Fig. 8A: indicating two curved ridges, i.e., WE 82 and IE 83, extending a distance beyond the body of the analyte sensing device and partially encircle the sensing area); and the electrode is at the distal end (Fig. 8A: RE 81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney by adopting the electrode configuration having a sheath, at least two curved ridges surrounding the electrode as taught by Vu because it is a suitable electrode configuration having a redox active surface area for analyte sensing. Examiner notes here it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to swap the working electrode (i.e., WE 82 and IE 83) with the reference electrode (i.e., RE 81) in the electrode configuration because it is an obvious matter of design choice by rearranging the electrodes. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). As a result, the combined Barton-Sweeney and Vu would result in the working electrode in the sensing area surrounded by the reference electrode. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Barton-Sweeney does not explicitly disclose the metal nanoparticles are cerium oxide nanoparticles, wherein the cerium oxide nanoparticles comprise a ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV) of at least 0.4.
However, Seal teaches a working electrode having a coating layer comprising a plurality of cerium oxide nanoparticles ([0012] lines 3-5). Cerium oxide includes both ceric oxide and cerous oxide ([0024] line 3). Cerium of valence +3 is generally referred to as cerous, while with valence +4 is generally referred to as ceric ([0024] lines 1-2). An average cerium oxide nanoparticle size in the range <20 nm provides an unexpected and highly beneficial result which is believed to be based on an increased percentage of +3 valence states (relative to the generally more numerous +4 states) on the cerium oxide nanoparticles surface ([0025] lines 4-9). The presence of a relative high percentage of +3 valence states has been found to significantly improve performance of sensors ([0025] lines 11-13), rendering the ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV), i.e., the percentage of +3 valence states (relative to the generally more numerous +4 states), a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney by substituting its metal oxide nanoparticles with the cerium oxide nanoparticles having cerium of valence +3 and valence +4 as taught by Seal. The suggestion for doing so would have been that cerium oxide nanoparticles having cerium of valence +3 and valence +4 is a suitable material for electrode coating and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to this substitution because an increased percentage of +3 valence states (relative to the generally more numerous +4 states) on the cerium oxide nanoparticles surface has been found to significantly improve performance of sensors ([0025] lines 6-9, 11-13). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney and Seal by adjusting the ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV) of the cerium oxide nanoparticles within the claimed range because the ratio of cerium (III) to cerium (IV) is a result-effective variable and can be optimized through routine experimentation to improve performance of sensors. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Barton-Sweeney and Seal do not explicitly disclose cerium oxide nanoparticles directly anchored to the carbon-based substrate through carboxylic groups.
However, Wu teaches synthesis of noble metal nanoparticles/carbon nanotubes nanohybrids for biosensors ([Summary]). The most common covalent functionalization involves the addition of carbonyl and carboxyl groups onto the CNT surface, providing nucleation sites for the deposition of noble metal NPs on the surface of CNTs and dispersion of noble metal NPs on the surface of carbonyl and carboxyl functionalized CNTs (p. 80, col. 1, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney by incorporating carboxylic groups to directly anchor the cerium oxide nanoparticles to the carbon-based substrate as taught by Wu because it is a known method in the art and applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(D).
Claim(s) 13 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton-Sweeney in view of Vu, Seal and Wu, and further in view of Chen (U.S. 2018/0096801), or, alternatively, further in view of Dezfuli (A. Dezfuli, Facile sonochemical synthesis and electrochemical investigation of ceria/graphene nanocomposites, J. Mater. Chem. B, 2015(3), page 2362-70), supported by Electrochemistry Basics as an evidence.
Regarding claim 13, Barton-Sweeney, Vu, Seal, and Wu disclose all limitations of claim 10 as applied to claim 10. Barton-Sweeney, Vu, Seal, and Wu do not disclose a weight ratio of the cerium oxide nanoparticles to the carbon-based substrate ranging from about 10:90 to about 90:10.
However, Chen teaches a supercapacitor 100 including at least two electrodes layers, which include an activated carbon fiber (ACF) fibric (Fig. 1; ¶39). The activated carbon fiber fabric further includes nanoparticles (¶43), which include transition metals such as cerium (¶46). The nanoparticles confer certain desirable properties to the activated carbon fiber fabric, for example, enabling a redox reaction for the purpose of enhancing supercapacitor performance (¶46). The amount of nanoparticle in the activated carbon fiber can range from 5% to 55% by weight, based on the weight of the activated carbon fiber (¶47), which overlaps the claimed range from about 10:90 to about 90:10. Here, Examiner notes that Barton-Sweeney discloses the sensor is used for electrochemical detection (¶2), which is based on a oxidation-reduction (“redox”) reaction to move electrons and generate current, as evidenced by Electrochemistry Basics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney, Vu, Seal, and Wu by adjusting the weight ratio of the cerium oxide nanoparticles to the carbon-based substrate within the claimed range because they are suitable ratio for loaded cerium oxide nanoparticles to the amorphous carbon-based substrate for electrochemical working electrode. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Alternatively, Dezfuli teaches a GC electrode (page 2363, Col. 2, para. 3, line 7), a carbon-based substrate on the electrode (Fig. 1; page 2363, Col. 1, para. 3, line 1: graphene oxide; page 2363, Col. 1, para. 4, line 5: reduction of decorated GO); and cerium oxide nanoparticles directly on the carbon-based substrate (Fig. 1; page 2363, Col. 1, para. 4, lines 4-5: anchoring as-synthesized CeO2 nanoparticles on GO, and reduction of decorated GO). The weight ratio of cerium oxide nanoparticles to carbon-based substrate ranges from about 10:90 to about 90:10 (page 2364, Table 1, theoretical mass ratio CeO2/GO is 1:2 for CG2 nanocomposite). Although the carbon-based substrate of Dezfuli includes graphene oxide, it still provides a suitable guidance on the weight ratio of cerium oxide nanoparticles to carbon-based substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney, Vu, and Seal by adjusting the weight ratio of the cerium oxide nanoparticles to the carbon-based substrate within the claimed range because they are suitable ratio for loaded metal nanoparticles to the amorphous carbon-based substrate for electrochemical working electrode. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 26-28, Barton-Sweeney, Vu, Seal, and Wu disclose all limitations of claim 10 as applied to claim 10. Barton-Sweeney, Vu, Seal, and Wu do not disclose a loading of 2.5 wt% of the cerium oxide nanoparticles on the carbon-based substrate (claim 26) or a loading of 18.4 wt% of the cerium oxide nanoparticles on the carbon-based substrate (claim 27) or a loading of 36.9 wt% of the cerium oxide nanoparticles on the carbon-based substrate (claim 28).
However, Chen teaches a supercapacitor 100 including at least two electrodes layers, which include an activated carbon fiber (ACF) fibric (Fig. 1; ¶39). The activated carbon fiber fabric further includes nanoparticles (¶43), which include transition metals such as cerium (¶46). The nanoparticles confer certain desirable properties to the activated carbon fiber fabric, for example, enabling a redox reaction for the purpose of enhancing supercapacitor performance (¶46). The amount of nanoparticle in the activated carbon fiber can range from 5% to 55% by weight, based on the weight of the activated carbon fiber (¶47), which is close to the claimed value in claim 26 and overlaps the claimed values in claims 27-28. Further, since the nanoparticles confer the certain desirable properties to the activated carbon fiber fabric, for example, enabling a redox reaction for the purpose of enhancing supercapacitor performance (¶46), and thus render the weight ratio is a result-effective variable to the supercapacitor performance with enabled redox reaction. Here, Examiner notes that Barton-Sweeney discloses the sensor is used for electrochemical detection (¶2), which is based on a oxidation-reduction (“redox”) reaction to move electrons and generate current, as evidenced by Electrochemistry Basics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney, Vu, Seal, and Wu by adjusting the loading of the cerium oxide nanoparticles on the carbon-based substrate within the claimed values of claims 27-28 because they are suitable ratio for loaded metal nanoparticles to the amorphous carbon-based substrate for electrochemical working electrode. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Further, the loading of the cerium oxide nanoparticles on the carbon-based substrate, as a result-effective variable, can be optimized through routine experimentation to enable redox reaction leading to desired supercapacitor performance to arrive the claimed value in claim 26.
Alternatively, Dezfuli teaches a GC electrode (page 2363, Col. 2, para. 3, line 7), a carbon-based substrate on the electrode (Fig. 1; page 2363, Col. 1, para. 3, line 1: graphene oxide; page 2363, Col. 1, para. 4, line 5: reduction of decorated GO); and cerium oxide nanoparticles directly on the carbon-based substrate (Fig. 1; page 2363, Col. 1, para. 4, lines 4-5: anchoring as-synthesized CeO2 nanoparticles on GO, and reduction of decorated GO). Dezfuli teaches the mass ratio of CeO2/GO for various CeO2-RGO nanocomposites is from 5% (1/20) to 500% (5/1) (page 2364, Col. 1, Table 1), which is close to the claimed value in claim 26 and overlaps the claimed values in claims 27-28. Examiner notes that although the carbon-based substrate of Dezfuli includes graphene oxide, it still provide a suitable guidance on the weight ratio of cerium oxide nanoparticles to carbon-based substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney, Seal, and Wu by adjusting the loading of the cerium oxide nanoparticles with the claimed ratios because they are suitable loading of the cerium oxide nanoparticles on the carbon-based substrate for electrochemical working electrode. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton-Sweeney in view of Vu, Seal, and Wu, and further in view of Levaray (US 2019/0285570).
Regarding claim 30, Barton-Sweeney, Vu, Seal, and Wu disclose all limitations of claim 10 as applied to claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the carbon-based substrate is carbon black.
However, Levaray teaches chemical sensors having a composite thin film that comprises (e.g., is made of) chemically-modified carbon black with grafted gold nanoparticles ([Abstract]). In some embodiment, it may comprises carbon black onto which one or more species are, directly and/or indirectly grated (¶36), and the sensing element comprises a plurality of gold nanoparticles grated onto carbon black (¶66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barton-Sweeney, Vu, Seal, and Wu by substituting its carbon-based substrate with carbon black as taught by Levaray. The suggestion for doing so would have been that carbon black is a suitable material for carbon-based substrate of chemical sensors and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive. The instant rejection relies on the prior art, Vu, for the newly added features of the sensor configuration.
Applicant argues Vu fails to teach or suggest a plurality of curved ridges extending a distance beyond the distal end of a sheath, and a sensing area bounded within he curved ridges, wherein the electrode is in the sensing area, and where the curved ridges are configured to keep the sensing area a distance away from an object to be sensed (Response, p. 6, para. 5). Applicant argues even if WE 82 and IE 83 of Vu are curved ridges, they are only include part of the sensing area (p. 7, para. 2). These arguments are unpersuasive because the modified Barton-Sweeney and Vu by using two ridges of one electrode surrounding another electrode and it would be obvious to swap the working electrode and reference electrode to result in the two ridges surrounding a sensing area of the working electrode. Thus, the modified working electrode surrounded by two ridges of the modified reference electrodes would be within the sensing area inside the ridges.
Further, Examiner notes the specification discloses four ridges 18a-d (Fig. 8D) which are not any electrodes, which is not recited in the amended claims. Examiner suggests Applicant amending the claims to particularly point out this disclosed structural feature for further prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan V Van can be reached on (571)272-8521. 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights