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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/31/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 9-17 and 19-25 are cancelled. Claim 18 was previously withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
All claim objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are essentially maintained.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1, line 10 recites “said first electrolyte solution”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if said first electrolyte solution refers to “a first electrolyte solution chamber” or to “electrolyte solution” [though examiner notes electrolyte solution is mentioned in both lines 10 and 14], or if said first electrolyte solution is a newly recited, different element. Therefore, it is unclear if the first electrolyte solution chamber, the electrolyte solution [of lines 10 and/or 14], or a newly recited element is being referred to as being in contact with a lower surface of the first MXene layer. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-8 are further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to be at least any of the previously mentioned options.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1, line 14 recites “said second electrolyte solution”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if said second electrolyte solution refers to “a second electrolyte solution chamber” or to “electrolyte solution” [though examiner notes electrolyte solution is mentioned in both lines 10 and 14], or if said second electrolyte solution is a newly recited, different element. Therefore, it is unclear if it is the second electrolyte solution chamber, the electrolyte solution [of lines 10 and/or 14], or a newly recited element is being referred to as being in contact with said insulator layer. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-8 are further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to be at least any of the previously mentioned options.
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) 1-3, 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashir et al. (US20140174927A1) in view of Xu et al., (Charging/Discharging Dynamics in Two-Dimensional Titanium Carbide (MXene) Slit Nanopore: Insights from molecular dynamic study, 2016, Electrochimica Acta, 196, Pages 75 – 83), Xu being cited in the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 05/21/2024.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, a device for sequencing biopolymers (Bashir teaches an apparatus for sequencing biomolecules [such as DNA] and monitoring biomolecule parameters such as polynucleotide sequence, Para. 0003, 0011, claim 2, Fig. 21B), the device comprising:
Bashir is silent to the following limitations 1) a first MXene layer configured as a first electrode; and 2) a second MXene layer whose lower surface is disposed above an upper surface of the first MXene layer.
However, Bashir teaches a first and second graphene layer [140, 140] separated from each other by dielectric layers 150 [Fig. 21B and Para. 0144]. Bashir further teaches a first graphene layer can be configured as a first electrode, since it is electrically contacted and embedded with a gate electrode [Para. 0013, 0037-0039 “the embedded gate electrode comprises any of the graphene layers”]. The second graphene layer 140 [top layer] whose lower surface is disposed above an upper surface of the first graphene layer 140 [bottom layer], [Fig. 21B and Para. 0144].
Xu teaches MXene nanosheet layers composed of (Ti3C2(OH)2) with a slit nanopore penetrating these MXene layers (Abstract, Fig. 1, and Page 76, Col. 1, Para. 2). Xu further teaches the MXene nanosheets/layers can function as electrodes (Fig. 1) and that these MXene nanosheet layers would be beneficial since in the absence of an applied potential, electrolyte ions spontaneously wet the MXene layers and nanopore and thus a faster diffusion property is observed inside the nanopore (Page 81, Col. 2, Para. 2).
Bashir and Xu are considered analogous art to the claimed invention since they are in the same field of inorganic materials for nanopore studies (Abstracts of Bashir and Xu). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the graphene material of the first graphene layer, configured as a first electrode, and the graphene material of the second graphene layer, whose lower surface is disposed above an upper surface of the first graphene layer, of Bashir with the MXene material of the first and second MXene layers, as taught by Xu, since Xu teaches the MXene layers with a nanopore penetrating these layers would be beneficial since in the absence of an applied potential, electrolyte ions spontaneously wet the MXene layers and nanopore and thus a faster diffusion property is observed inside the nanopore (Page 81, Col. 2, Para. 2). Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the arts (MPEP 2143[I][B]). Additionally, 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].
Bashir does not explicitly disclose “an interlayer space disposed between the upper surface of the first MXene layer and the lower surface of the second MXene layer” in combination with “wherein the interlayer space stores cations during use, thereby reducing access resistance during sequencing of a biopolymer through the nanopore”.
However, Bashir teaches a dielectric layer 150 [corresponding to an interlayer space] between the upper surface of the first graphene layer 140 and the lower surface of the second graphene layer 140 as seen in the Fig. 21b above, and the modification of Bashir in view of Xu as outlined above teaches the first and second graphene layers which have been substituted with the first and second MXene layers, thus yield the dielectric layer 150 disposed between the upper surface of the first MXene layer and the lower surface of the second MXene layer, [Fig. 21B and Para. 0144 of Bashir]);
Xu teaches MXene nanosheet layers composed of (Ti3C2(OH)2) with a slit nanopore penetrating these MXene layers and an interlayer space between the MXene layers (Abstract, Fig. 1, and Page 76, Col. 1, Para. 2). Xu further teaches the interlayer space with a distance d between the first and second MXene layers and the interlayer space comprises a plurality of cations [EMIM]+ [Fig. 1, Page 76, Col. 1, last paragraph] which is beneficial for investigating charge transfer storage mechanisms of electrolyte ions in the nanopore [Page 76, Col. 1, last paragraph]. Xu discloses the MXene nanosheets/layers can function as electrodes (Fig. 1) and that these MXene nanosheet layers with an interlayer space in between would be beneficial since in the absence of an applied potential, electrolyte ions spontaneously wet the MXene layers and nanopore and thus a faster diffusion property is observed inside the nanopore (Page 81, Col. 2, Para. 2).
Given the teachings of Xu regarding that MXene nanosheets/layers can function as electrodes (Fig. 1) and that these MXene nanosheet layers with an interlayer space with a distance d between the first and second MXene layers would be beneficial since in the absence of an applied potential, electrolyte ions spontaneously wet the MXene layers and nanopore and thus a faster diffusion property is observed inside the nanopore (Page 81, Col. 2, Para. 2 of Xu), it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dielectric layer/interlayer space disposed between the upper surface of the first MXene layer and the lower surface of the second MXene layer of modified Bashir with the interlayer space comprising a plurality of cations as taught by Xu, since Xu teaches it would be beneficial for investigating charge transfer storage mechanisms of electrolyte ions in the nanopore and that the MXene nanosheet layers with an interlayer space with a distance d between the first and second MXene layers would be beneficial since in the absence of an applied potential, electrolyte ions spontaneously wet the MXene layers and nanopore and thus a faster diffusion property is observed inside the nanopore (Page 81, Col. 2, Para. 2 and Page 76, Col. 1, last paragraph of Xu]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the arts (MPEP 2143[I][B]).
The limitation “wherein the interlayer space stores cations during use, thereby reducing access resistance during sequencing of a biopolymer through the nanopore” is an intended use limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Modified Bashir teaches the above interlayer space that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Xu teaches the interlayer space with a distance d between the first and second MXene layers and the interlayer space comprises a plurality of cations [EMIM]+ [Fig. 1, Page 76, Col. 1, last paragraph of Xu; see rejection above] and thus the interlayer space of Modified Bashir is capable of storing cations during use as the interlayer space comprises a plurality of cations. Since the prior art does disclose a device comprising substantially the same elements or components as that of the applicant, it is contended that the device of the prior art is capable of reducing the access resistance. Accordingly, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent and cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed property or function (i.e., wherein the interlayer space stores cations during use, thereby reducing access resistance during sequencing of a biopolymer through the nanopore), is necessarily present in the prior art material [See MPEP 2112.01].)
an insulator layer disposed on an upper surface of the second MXene layer opposite the interlayer space (Bashir teaches top dielectric layer 150 which is an insulating layer and the modification of Bashir in view of Xu as outlined above would have the insulator layer 150 disposed on an upper surface of the second MXene layer [top layer 140] opposite the interlayer space, [Fig. 21B, Para. 0072 and 0144 of Bashir; see rejection above]);
a first electrolyte solution chamber configured to contain electrolyte solution, wherein said first electrolyte solution is in contact with a lower surface of the first MXene layer opposite the interlayer space (Bashir teaches a first electrolyte solution chamber 300 configured to contain an electrolyte solution and the modification of Bashir in view of Xu as outlined above would have the first electrolyte solution chamber 300 in contact with a lower surface of the first MXene layer [140, bottom layer] opposite the interlayer space, [Para. 0074, 0144 and Fig. 21B of Bashir; see 112b rejection above for claim interpretation; see rejection of Bashir in view of Xu above]);
a first solution electrode disposed in the first electrolyte solution chamber (Bashir teaches a first solution electrode 800 disposed in the first electrolyte solution chamber 300, [Para. 0144 and Fig. 21B]);
a second electrolyte solution chamber configured to contain electrolyte solution, wherein said second electrolyte solution in contact with said insulator layer (Bashir teaches a second electrolyte solution chamber 200 configured to contain electrolyte solution, wherein the second electrolyte solution chamber 200 is in contact with the dielectric layer 150 [Para. 0074, 0144 and Fig. 21B; see 112b rejection above for claim interpretation]);
a second solution electrode disposed in the second electrolyte solution chamber (Bashir teaches a second solution electrode 700 disposed in the second electrolyte chamber 200, [Fig. 21B and Para. 0144]); and
a nanopore penetrating through the first MXene layer, the interlayer space, the second MXene layer, and the insulator layer, and forming a conductive pathway between the first and second electrolyte solution chambers (Bashir teaches a nanopore 160 penetrating through all layers of the stack 130 forming a conductive pathway and fluidically connecting the first and second electrolyte solution chambers 200 and 300, and thus the modification of Bashir in view of Xu teaches a nanopore that penetrates through the first MXene layer [140, bottom layer], the interlayer space, the second MXene layer [140, top layer] and the insulator layer [top layer 150] [Fig. 21b, Para. 0144 of Bashir; see rejection of Bashir in view of Xu above]);
Regarding claim 2, the device of claim 1, wherein the first and second MXene layers each comprise an MXene material independently selected from the group consisting of Ti2C, V2C, Cr2C, Nb2C, Ta2C, Ti3C2, V3C2, Ta3C2, Ti4C3, V4C3, Nb4C3, Ta4C3, Mo2TiC2, Cr2TiC2, and Mo2Ti2C3 (Modified Bashir as applied to claim 1 above teaches the first and second MXene layer each comprise an MXene material Ti3C2 with terminal hydroxy groups, [Fig. 1 and Page 71, Col. 1, Para. 1 of Xu])
Regarding claim 3, the device of claim 1, modified Bashir is silent to wherein the first and second MXene layers each has a thickness in the range from one to five atoms.
However, Bashir teaches the conducting layers [the graphene layers 140] are an atomically thin conducting layers on the order of a few atoms or less, which overlaps the claimed range [Para. 0012, 0010].
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the first and second MXene layers of modified Bashir to have a thickness of a few atoms or less as taught by Bashir, since Bashir teaches this thickness would be suitable for monitoring electrical parameters such as electronic DNA sequencing [Para. 0077, 0134 and 0012 of Bashir].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected and utilized a thickness within the disclosed range, as taught by Bashir, including those amounts that overlap within the claimed range, since one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect any value within the taught range to be suitable given that Bashir specifically teaches the range to be suitable for the conducting layers. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Modified Bashir is silent to a surface area in the range from 0.001 to 10,000 mm2.
However, Bashir teaches the thickness of the conducting layers [which corresponds to the MXene layers] affects the electrical parameters such as electronic DNA sequencing [Para. 0077, 0134 and 0012]. The surface area of the conducting layers depends on the thickness of the conducting layer. Thus, the surface area affects the thickness, which further affects the electrical parameters.
As the electrical parameters, such as electronic DNA sequencing, and the thickness of the conducting layers [i.e, MXene layers] are variables that can be modified (Para. [0077, 0134 and 0012] of Bashir), among others, by adjusting the surface area of the layer (Para. [0077, 0134 and 0012] of Bashir), the precise surface area of the first and second MXene layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed surface area in the range from 0.001 to 10, 000 mm2 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the surface area of the first and second MXene layers in modified Bashir to obtain the desired surface area in order to achieve the desired electrical parameters, such as electronic DNA sequencing, and the thickness of the conducting layers [i.e, MXene layers] as taught by Bashir. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 5, the device of claim 1, wherein the nanopore has a diameter in the range from 0.3 nm to 10 nm (Bashir teaches the nanopore has a diameter of 8 ± 0.5 nm, falling within the claimed range, Para. 0053 and Fig. 7c).
Regarding claim 6, the device of claim 1, wherein the first MXene layer is in electrical contact with a conductive metal contact configured for electrical connection to a voltage source (Modified Bashir as applied to claim 1 above teaches the first MXene layer [140, bottom layer] and Bashir teaches this first bottom layer 140 is in electrical contact with a conductive metal gate electrode 600 configured for electrical connection to a voltage source [power supply 400], [Para. 0013, 0037-0039, 0144 of Bashir, see rejection of claim 1]).
Regarding claim 8, the device of claim 1, wherein the interlayer space comprises a plurality of cations (Modified Bashir as applied to claim 1 above teaches the interlayer space comprises a plurality of cations [EMIM]+ [Fig. 1, Page 76, Col. 1, last paragraph of Xu; see rejection of claim 1]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashir in view of Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US20190250127A1).
Regarding claim 4, the device of claim 1, wherein the insulator layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of A12O3, TiO2, HfO2, VO2, SiO2, and BN (Bashir teaches the dielectric/insulator layer 150 comprises Al2O3, [Para. 0040 and claim 8 and 40]) and
Bashir is silent to has a thickness in the range from 0.5 to 5 nm.
Zhang teaches a nanopore device for sequencing molecules and heteropolymers [Abstract and Para. 0033, claim 1]. Zhang further teaches the top dielectric layer 44 can have a thickness of about 5 nm to about 500 nm [Fig. 4 and Para, 0052], which overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the insulator layer of modified Bashir to have a thickness of about 5 nm to about 500 nm as taught by Zhang since Zhang teaches this thickness would be suitable for the top insulating/dielectric layer [Para. 0052 of Zhang].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected and utilized a thickness within the disclosed range, as taught by Zhang, including those amounts that overlap within the claimed range, since one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect any value within the taught range to be suitable given that Zhang specifically teaches the range to be suitable for the insulator layer. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashir in view of Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foster et al. (US20180299400A1).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Bashir is silent to wherein the first and/or second electrolyte chamber comprises silicon nitride.
Foster teaches a nanopore-based sequencing device for sequencing a DNA sample (Abstract). Foster further teaches the device comprises a first electrolyte chamber containing salt solution 506 and comprises a side wall comprising silicon nitride [Fig. 10 and Para. 0034, the dielectric layer 1007 includes silicon nitride], which is beneficial for forming an insulating side wall [Para. 0054].
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a material of the first electrolyte chamber of modified Bashir to silicon nitride as taught by Foster since Foster says it would be beneficial for forming an insulating side wall [Para. 0054 of Foster]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the arts (MPEP 2143[I][B]). Additionally, 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, see Remarks Pg. 6-7, filed 03/31/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues on page 6 that in Xu’s disclosure regarding charge transfer storage mechanisms of an MXene membrane are concerned with charge storage for supercapacitors and batteries, and as such are non-analogous prior art.
Examiner’s Response #1:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). The prior art of Xu et al. meets the above two conditions: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor, two dimensional inorganic materials for nanopore studies [see e.g., Abstract of Xu], as the claimed invention; and (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e., implementing two dimensional-materials, MXene sheets (Ti3C2(OH)2), as electrodes in nanopores and nanoporous devices). Additionally, the examiner notes that “The scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly” because "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.". see MPEP 2141.01(a); Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Applicant argues on page 6 that Xu does not teach or suggest anything related to reducing access resistance for ions moving through a nanopore in an MXene membrane in the context of measuring currents related to sequencing a biomolecule in the pore. The combination of Bashir and Xu, which requires replacement of a solid layer with a space suitable for charging with cations and their release to reduce access resistance in the context of sequencing, and some nebulous use of Xu’s surface charge theoretical study for a supercapacitor, is made with hindsight knowledge of Applicant’s invention. Even if properly combined, the combined teachings of Bashir and Xu fail to suggest use of an interlayer space for charging with cations and reduction of access resistance, which is now required by claim 1.
Examiner’s Response #2:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s arguments that Xu does not teach or suggest anything related to reducing access resistance for ions moving through a nanopore and the combined teachings of Bashir and Xu fail to suggest use of an interlayer space for charging with cations and reduction of access resistance, the arguments are unpersuasive because Modified Bashir teaches all structural limitations as the presently claimed device and thus anticipate the claims or render the claims obvious in view of other cited references. The distinctions as argued by applicant are for intended use, e.g., using an interlayer space for charging with cations and reduction of access resistance, or as functional limitations, which do not add patentable weight to the presently claimed device. Modified Bashir teaches the above interlayer space that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Xu teaches the interlayer space with a distance d between the first and second MXene layers and the interlayer space comprises a plurality of cations [EMIM]+ [Fig. 1, Page 76, Col. 1, last paragraph of Xu; see rejection above] and thus the interlayer space of Modified Bashir is capable of storing cations during use as the interlayer space comprises a plurality of cations. Since the prior art does disclose a device comprising substantially the same elements or components as that of the applicant, it is contended that the device of the prior art is capable of reducing the access resistance. Accordingly, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent and cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed property or function (i.e., wherein the interlayer space stores cations during use, thereby reducing access resistance during sequencing of a biopolymer through the nanopore), is necessarily present in the prior art material [See MPEP 2112.01].)
Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As outlined in the rejection above, given the teachings of Xu regarding that MXene nanosheets/layers can function as electrodes (Fig. 1) and that these MXene nanosheet layers with an interlayer space with a distance d between the first and second MXene layers would be beneficial since in the absence of an applied potential, electrolyte ions spontaneously wet the MXene layers and nanopore and thus a faster diffusion property is observed inside the nanopore (Page 81, Col. 2, Para. 2 of Xu), it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dielectric layer/interlayer space disposed between the upper surface of the first MXene layer and the lower surface of the second MXene layer of modified Bashir with the interlayer space comprising a plurality of cations as taught by Xu, since Xu teaches it would be beneficial for investigating charge transfer storage mechanisms of electrolyte ions in the nanopore and that the MXene nanosheet layers with an interlayer space with a distance d between the first and second MXene layers would be beneficial since in the absence of an applied potential, electrolyte ions spontaneously wet the MXene layers and nanopore and thus a faster diffusion property is observed inside the nanopore (Page 81, Col. 2, Para. 2 and Page 76, Col. 1, last paragraph of Xu]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the arts (MPEP 2143[I][B]).
Applicant’s Argument #3:
Applicant requests on page 6-7 the withdrawal of the rejection for the instant claims including for dependent claims 4 and 7.
Examiner’s Response #3:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Based on the Examiner’s Responses #1-2 above, the amended claim 1 is still unpatentable over the prior art of the record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Danda et al. (Two-dimensional nanopores and nanoporous membranes for ion and molecule transport, Available online 12th October 2018, Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 55:124–133) teaches two dimensional materials for nanopores and nanoporous devices [Abstract, Title] and specifically discloses that emerging 2D materials such as 2D MXenes can further enrich the 2D nanopore research [Page 125, Col. 2, Para. 1]. Goldsmith et al. (US 20230408510 A1) a sensor chip for detecting analytes such as DNA and DNA sequencing reactions [Abstract, Para. 0338] with a 2D structure of nanomaterial layer applied to the first dielectic layer, the 2D nanomaterial may be graphene or MXenes such as Ti2C, (Ti0.5,Nb0.5), V2C, Nb2C, Ti3C2, Ti3CN, Nb4C3, or Ta4C3 [Para. 0342].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOMMER OSMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/S.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794