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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments and remarks, filed on 5/8/2024, has been entered. The previous prior art rejection has modified.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3 and 5-25 are pending with claims 1-3, 5-10, and 25 being examined and claims 11-24 are withdrawn.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oganesian et al (US 20160043240 A1; hereinafter “Oganesian”; already of record) in view of Chen et al (US 20170234861 A1; hereinafter “Chen”) as evidenced by Nanogrifi (https://shop.nanografi.com/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-graphene-oxide-and-reduced-graphene-oxide/; hereinafter “Nanogrifi).
Regarding claim 1, Oganesian teaches a sensing device (Oganesian; Abstract), comprising:
a series of sensing units (Oganesian; Fig. 10; para [7]; one or more detectors), wherein each of the sensing units comprises:
a base layer (Oganesian; Fig. 10; para [22]; a host substrate 36);
a series of spacers between the sensing units of the series of sensing units (Oganesian; Fig. 10; para [31]; the spacer material 26); and
a housing (Oganesian; para [28]; a housing 62).
Oganesian does not disclose a first coating on the base layer, a second coating on the base layer, wherein the second coating comprises a chemical functionality dopant; a third coating on the base layer.
However, Chen teaches an analogous art of a field-effect transistor based sensor (Chen; Abstract) comprising a base layer (Chen; Fig. 1; para [57]; a substrate includes a Si wafer); a first coating on the base layer (Chen; para [39, 40]; Graphene, a single layer of carbon atoms in a two-dimensional honeycomb lattice, has potential applications in the electrical detection of biological species due to their unique physical properties. Graphene-based sheets are flat and large in lateral dimensions, which make it easier for device fabrication…graphene-based sheets decorated with nanoparticle-probe conjugates), a second coating on the base layer, wherein the second coating comprises a chemical functionality dopant1 (Chen; para [42]; a reduced graphene-oxide layer coated with a passivation layer); a third coating on the base layer (Chen; Fig. 1; examiner interprets the layers above the graphene layer as the third coating which comprises the aluminum oxide and DNA). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the base layer of Oganesian to comprise the first coating and second coating as taught by Chen, because Chen teaches that reduced graphene is excellent at detecting contaminants (Chen; para [40]). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the base layer of Oganesian to comprise the third coating as taught by Chen, because Chen teaches that the rGO/Al2O3/DNA devices show a much higher sensitivity to each Hg2+ concentration (Chen; para [100]).
1 Nanogrifi teaches that reduction of graphene oxide causes changes to the structural properties of graphene oxide. Examiner notes reduced graphene comprises hydroxyl group and oxygen atoms as seen in the figure, thus the second layer is interpreted as the functional group attached to the graphene sheet. A reference does not need to antedate the filing date if it is just to show facts such as characteristics and properties of a material (see MPEP 2124).
Regarding claim 3, modified Oganesian teaches the sensing device of claim 1 (the sensing units of Oganesian is modified to comprise the first coating, the second coating, and the third coating as taught by Chen discussed above in claim 1), wherein the first coating comprises a graphene coating (Chen; para [40]; graphene-based sheets).
Regarding claim 5, modified Oganesian teaches the sensing device of claim 1 (the sensing units of Oganesian is modified to comprise the first coating, the second coating, and the third coating as taught by Chen discussed above in claim 1), wherein the second coating corresponds to a chemical sensitivity of the sensing device (Nanogrifi; reduction of graphene changes the reactivity of graphene oxide). The examiner notes that the hydroxyl group would have some degree of chemical sensitivity.
Regarding claim 6, modified Oganesian teaches the sensing device of claim 1 (the sensing units of Oganesian is modified to comprise the third coating as taught by Chen discussed above in claim 1), wherein the third coating comprises a metal oxide (Chen; Fig. 1; para [44]; the passivation layer may comprise aluminum oxide).
Regarding claim 7, modified Oganesian teaches the sensing device of claim 1 (the sensing units of Oganesian is modified to comprise the third coating as taught by Chen discussed above in claim 1), wherein the third coating comprises a DNA dopant (Chen; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Oganesian teaches the sensing device of claim 1, further comprising a channel through which fluids are able to pass (Oganesian; para [18]; the opening 24 can also expose the sensor active areas 17 to the environment, allowing chemical sensor detectors to detect physical substances such as gas and chemicals to which the sensor is exposed).
Regarding claim 25, modified Oganesian teaches the sensing device of claim 1 (the sensing units of Oganesian is modified to comprise the third coating as taught by Chen discussed above in claim 1), wherein the DNA dopant comprises functionalized ssDNA (Chen; Fig. 1). The examiner notes that the strand is discussed in para [95].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oganesian in view of Chen as evidenced by Nanogrifi, and in further view of Ahmad (US 20080056946 A1; hereinafter “Ahmad”; already of record).
Regarding claim 2, modified Oganesian teaches the sensing device of claim 1, with the base layer.
Modified Oganesian does not teach wherein the base layer is a metal tube.
However, Ahmad teaches an analogous art of a sensing apparatus (Ahmad; Abstract) comprising a base layer, wherein the base layer is a metal tube (Ahmad; para [183]; the substrate 25 placed on a plastic annulus 26 with the metals facing the inner cylinder). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the base layer of modified Oganesian in the manner of the metal tube as taught by Ahmad as this is a known and suitable substitution for base layers in the art. Further, it is a matter of engineering design to substitute the base layers in different ways, where the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected result, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Finally, one would have a reasonable expectation of success by changing the base layer of modified Oganesian to be the metal tube as taught by Ahmad claimed limitation as teaches this arrangement is a known and suitable arrangement in the art. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oganesian in view of Chen as evidenced by Nanogrifi, and in further view of Olmsted et al (US 20170312555 A1; hereinafter “Olmsted”; already of record; IDS filed on 7/14/2021).
Regarding claim 8, modified Oganesian teaches the sensing device of claim 1.
Modified Oganesian does not teach a voltage generator configured to generate a voltage across the series of sensing units; an analog-to-digital converter configured to convert resistances across each of the series of sensing units to electrical signals; and a processor configured to process the electrical signals.
However, Olmsted teaches an analogous art of a gas sensor comprising a voltage generator configured to generate a voltage across a series of sensing units (Olmsted; para [24]; Power supply circuit 170 may convert the received power to a voltage, Vin, which is provided to the computer 140 and chemiresistors 110, 115, 120); an analog-to-digital converter configured to convert resistances across each of the series of sensing units to electrical signals (Olmsted; para [22]; Analog to digital convers (ADCs) 125, 130, 135 are coupled to respective chemiresistors 110, 115, and 120. The ADCs provide digital signals that change based on the change in resistance of the chemiresistors responsive to exposure to various chemicals); and a processor configured to process the electrical signals (Olmsted; para [24]; A computer 140 is coupled to the ADCs and receives the digital signals). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the device of modified Oganesian to comprise the voltage generator, the analog-to-digital convertor, and the processor as taught by Olmsted, because Olmsted teaches that the power supply circuit provides power to the sensors, the ADCs convert the sensors into a digital signal, and the computer receives and analyzes the signal (Olmsted; para [20, 22, 24]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Oganesian teaches the sensing device of claim 1, further comprising a battery (Olmsted; para [24]; a button type battery 165 or other battery or power source). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the device of modified Oganesian to comprise the battery as taught by Olmsted, because Olmsted teaches that the battery provides power to the power supply circuit (Olmsted; para [24]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed, 2/5/2025, have been considered and some of the arguments are not found to be persuasive. The non-persuasive arguments are addressed below.
The examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejection of claim 7.
In the applicant’s arguments on pp 7-8, the applicant argues that Miyamoto fails to disclose “chemical functionality dopant”. Examiner no longer relies upon Miyamoto to teach the claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/A.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights