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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant's arguments, filed 02/06/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 02/06/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Applicants have amended claims 13, 23-24, 27, and 29.
Applicants have left claims 15, 18-20, 25, 28, and 30-36 as originally filed/previously presented.
Applicants have introduced new claims 37-38.
Applicants have canceled/previously canceled claims 1-12, 14, 16-17, 21-22, and 26.
Claims 13, 15, 18-20, 23-25, and 27-38 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Withdrawn and Newly Applied Necessitated by Applicant’s Amendments
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 13, 15, 18-20, 23-25, and 27-38 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 13, lines 15-16 recite “the graphene network material of the flexible and implantable electrode strings”. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if “the graphene network material of the flexible and implantable electrode strings” is the same as, related to, or different from “a graphene network material” of the first biochemical sensor and the second biochemical sensor. Further, it is currently unclear if “the graphene network material of the flexible and implantable electrode strings” is further defining the location of the graphene network material as being a part of the flexible and implantable electrode strings. For the purposes of examination, “the graphene network material of the flexible and implantable electrode strings” is the same as “a graphene network material” of the first biochemical sensor and the second biochemical sensor.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of Remarks, filed 02/06/2026, with respect to the 112(d) rejection of claims 26-27, and 29-31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicants have canceled claim 26, rendering the rejection moot. The 112(d) rejection of claims 26-27, and 29-31 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Newly Applied Necessitated by Applicant’s Amendments
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 13, 15, 19, 25, 27-31, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipke et al. (US 20130090542 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Kipke, in view of Romero-Ortega et al. (US 20200155834 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Romero-Ortega, in view of Wan et al. (“Laser induced self-N-doped porous graphene as an electrochemical biosensor for femtomolar miRNA detection”), hereinafter referred to as Wan.
The claims are generally directed towards an implantable biochemical sensor device, the device comprising: a first biochemical sensor comprised of a graphene network material, and having an elongated structure with a first input end and a first sensor end distal to the first input end; a second biochemical sensor comprised of the graphene network material, and having the elongated structure with a second input end and a second sensor end distal to the second input end, wherein the graphene network material comprises a laser-induced conductive graphene network, wherein a precursor material includes a carbon-rich solid capable of undergoing rapid laser-induced pyrolysis, and wherein the first sensor end and the second sensor end each comprise flexible and implantable electrode strings; and an elastomer that coats and surrounds the graphene network material of the flexible and implantable electrode strings except at exposed sensor portions of each of the first sensor end and the second sensor end.
Regarding claim 13, Kipke discloses an implantable biochemical sensor device (Abstract, “implantable micro-component electrodes …”, Fig. 1A-C, Fig. 12A-D), the device comprising:
a first biochemical sensor comprised of a graphene network material (Fig. 1A-C, Fig. 8B-C, Fig. 12A-D, para. [0050], “electrically conductive core may comprise graphene …”, para. [0039], “micro-component electrode probes …”, para. [0091], para. [0104], “electrically conductive regions can be used to detect … biochemicals …”), and having an elongated structure with a first input end and a first sensor end distal to the first input end (Fig. 12A, Fig. 12D, para. [0066], “exposed tip comprising the electrically conductive region or electrode site …”, para. [0095], “mounting individual … carbon fibers onto an acute microelectrode printed circuit board …” - the first input end being the end connected to the printed circuit board and the first sensor end being the exposed electrically conductive region/electrode site);
a second biochemical sensor comprised of the graphene network material (Fig. 1A-C, Fig. 8B-C, Fig. 12A-D, para. [0020], “multi-strand …”, para. [0050], “electrically conductive core may comprise graphene …”, para. [0039], “micro-component electrode probes …”, para. [0091], para. [0093], para. [0104], “electrically conductive regions can be used to detect … biochemicals …”), and having the elongated structure with a second input end and a second sensor end distal to the second input end (Fig. 12A, Fig. 12D, para. [0066], “exposed tip comprising the electrically conductive region or electrode site …”, para. [0095], “mounting individual … carbon fibers onto an acute microelectrode printed circuit board …” - the first input end being the end connected to the printed circuit board and the first sensor end being the exposed electrically conductive region/electrode site),
wherein the graphene network material comprises a conductive graphene network; (para. [0050], “conductive core may comprise graphene … strong, flexible and conductive …”, para. [0053], “CNT-polymer composites …”, para. [0057-0059], para. [0091], “electrically conductive core material … graphene”), and
wherein the first sensor end and the second sensor end each comprise flexible and implantable electrode strings (Fig. 1A-C, Fig. 8B-C, Fig. 12A-D, para. [0051], “conductive core may comprise graphene … strong, flexible and conductive … ultrathin and flexible microthread probes”, para. [0057-0059], para. [0091]).
However, Kipke does not explicitly disclose an elastomer that coats and surrounds the graphene network material of the flexible and implantable electrode strings except at exposed sensor portions of each of the first sensor end and the second sensor end.
Romero-Ortega teaches of an analogous implantable biochemical sensor device (Abstract, Fig. 9, Fig. 23, para. [0003], para. [0013-0014], para. [0156]). Romero-Ortega teaches the sensor device includes elongated structures with input ends and sensor ends (Fig. 23, para. [0054], para. [0056], para. [0126]). Romero-Ortega further teaches an elastomer that coats and surrounds the graphene network material of the flexible and implantable electrode strings except at exposed sensor portions of each of the first sensor end and the second sensor end (para. [0011], “multi-layer graphene-fiber core, an insulative coating surrounding the multi-layer graphene-fiber core … insulative coating may be polymer-based coating such as Parylene-C or silicone”, para. [0056], “insulating material may then be cut such that one conducting surface and/or a sharp tip is exposed …”, para. [0057], “individual pieces are coated with an insulative material .. active sites of the microelectrode including the GF filaments are exposed …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device disclosed by Kipke to additionally comprise an elastomer that coats and surrounds the graphene network material of the flexible and implantable electrode strings except at exposed sensor portions of each of the first sensor end and the second sensor end, as taught by Romero-Ortega. This is because Romero-Ortega teaches the addition of an elastomer coating, such as Parylene-C or silicone, allows for the conductive graphene network material to be cut to expose specific sites for recording and/or stimulation, while also insulating the rest of the graphene network material (para. [0056]).
However, modified Kipke does not explicitly disclose the graphene network material comprises a laser-induced conductive graphene network, wherein a precursor material includes a carbon-rich solid capable of undergoing rapid-laser induced pyrolysis.
Wan teaches a graphene based electrochemical biosensor (Abstract, Introduction, Fig. 1). Wan further teaches a graphene network material of the biosensor comprises a laser-induced conductive graphene network, wherein a precursor material includes a carbon-rich solid capable of undergoing rapid-laser induced pyrolysis (Fig. 1, Introduction, para. 4, Morphological characterization of LIG, para. 1-2, Materials and apparatus, para. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the graphene network material taught by modified Kipke to explicitly comprise a laser-induced conductive graphene network, wherein a precursor material includes a carbon-rich solid capable of undergoing rapid-laser induced pyrolysis, as taught by Wan. This is because Wan teaches a laser-induced conductive graphene network with a precursor material that includes a carbon-rich solid capable of undergoing rapid-laser induced pyrolysis is a known method that allows for efficiency in fabrication graphene devices, specifically from polyimide films (Introduction, para. 2).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13, wherein the first sensor end and the second sensor end are electrically responsive to one or more of dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, and epinephrine (para. [0102], “micro-component can be used as an electrode for chemical sensing, such as dopamine”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13, wherein the graphene network material is operable to transmit an electrical stimulation signal and receive an electrical signal from an in vivo environment (para. [0102], para. [0103], “monitoring, sensing, or stimulating neural activity …”, para. [0122], “charge capacity of the electrode for stimulation”).
Regarding claim 25, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13.
However, modified Kipke does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastomer includes a first portion in contact with a first face of the first and second sensor ends and a second portion in contact with a second face of the first and second sensor ends.
Romero-Ortega further teaches the elastomer includes a first portion in contact with a first face of the first and second sensor ends and a second portion in contact with a second face of the first and second sensor ends (para. [0056], para. [0093], “bundle of four … graphitic fibers … encapsulated with Parylene-C insulation …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elastomer taught by modified Kipke to additionally include a first portion in contact with a first face of the first and second sensor ends and a second portion in contact with a second face of the first and second sensor ends, as taught by Romero-Ortega. This is because Romero-Ortega teaches a bundle coated with an elastomer coating surrounding the entire bundle allows for evaluating multiple measurement sites at a single time (para. [0097]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13, wherein the implantable electrode strings each have a width less than 100 µm (Fig. 12B, para. [0044], “microfiber component … diameter, that is less than … 10 µm …”).
Regarding claim 28, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13, wherein the first sensor end and the second sensor end are included in an implantable electrode probe (para. [0048], “micro-electrode for implantation …”, para. [0086], “neural probe …”).
Regarding claim 29, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13, further comprising a shuttle layer formed on the implantable electrode strings (para. [0106], “removable and/or a stiff dissolvable coating may be used on the implantable probe …”).
Regarding claim 30, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 29, wherein the shuttle layer is configured to be dissolvable by contact with an in vivo neurochemical environment (para. [0106], “removable and/or a stiff dissolvable coating may be used on the implantable probe …”).
Regarding claim 31, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 29, wherein the shuttle layer is configured to be dissolvable by contact with an in vivo gastrointestinal environment (para. [0106], “removable and/or a stiff dissolvable coating may be used on the implantable probe …”).
Regarding claim 34, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13, wherein the exposed portions have a width that is less than or equal to a width of the flexible and implantable electrode strings (Fig. 12B, para. [0044], “microfiber component … diameter, that is less than … 10 µm …”, para. [0045], “length … about 150 mm”, para. [0061], “core material is the electrically conductive part …”).
Regarding claim 35, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 34, wherein the width of the exposed portions is less than 1 mm (Fig. 12B, para. [0044], “microfiber component … diameter, that is less than … 10 µm …”).
Regarding claim 36, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 34, wherein the width of the exposed portions is less than 200 µm (Fig. 12B, para. [0044], “microfiber component … diameter, that is less than … 10 µm …”).
Regarding claim 37, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13.
However, modified Kipke does not explicitly disclose wherein the precursor material comprises a polyimide polymer.
Wan further teaches the precursory material comprises a polyimide polymer (Fig. 1, Abstract, Introduction, para. 2, Materials and apparatus, para. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the precursor material taught by modified Kipke to explicitly comprise a polyimide polymer, as taught by Wan. This is because Wan teaches a polyimide polymer allows for high electrical conductivity (Introduction, para. 2).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipke et al. (US 20130090542 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Kipke, in view of Romero-Ortega et al. (US 20200155834 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Romero-Ortega, in view of Wan et al. (“Laser induced self-N-doped porous graphene as an electrochemical biosensor for femtomolar miRNA detection”), hereinafter referred to as Wan, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Jamieson et al. (US 20140200431 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Jamieson.
Regarding claim 18, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13.
Kipke suggests the insulative coating may provide optical function (para. [0073]). However, modified Kipke does not explicitly disclose the device further comprises: an optical fiber operatively coupled with at least one of the first biochemical sensor and the second biochemical sensor, the optical fiber operable to transmit light to perform optogenetic stimulation, optical biosensing, or light therapy within an in vivo environment.
Jamieson teaches an analogous neural probe including elongated shanks for penetrating neural tissue (Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, element 16, para. [0036]). Jamieson teaches that the elongated shanks each include a sensing end with a plurality of recording sites (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, element 20, para. [0036]). Jamieson further teaches that the elongated shanks include an optical fiber operatively coupled with the sensing ends (Fig. 6, element 22, element 40, element 24, para. [0042]) and the optical fiber is operable to transmit light to perform optical stimulation and biosensing (para. [0028], para. [0047], para. [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by modified Kipke to additionally include an optical fiber operatively coupled with at least one of the first biochemical sensor and the second biochemical sensor, the optical fiber operable to transmit light to perform optogenetic stimulation, optical biosensing, or light therapy within an in vivo environment, as taught by Jamieson. This is because Jamieson teaches that the combined optical stimulation and biosensor allows for the device to selectively apply an optical stimuli and record a measurement of action resulting from the stimulus to make a diagnosis (para. [0028-0029]).
Claims 20 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipke et al. (US 20130090542 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Kipke, in view of Romero-Ortega et al. (US 20200155834 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Romero-Ortega, in view of Wan et al. (“Laser induced self-N-doped porous graphene as an electrochemical biosensor for femtomolar miRNA detection”), hereinafter referred to as Wan, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Thomas Cremers (US 20150366493 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Cremers.
Regarding claim 20, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13.
Kipke suggests the use of biochemical receptors and chemical receptors (para. [0051], para. [0102]). However, Kipke does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the graphene network material includes at least one of a biochemical receptor and a chemical receptor.
Cremers teaches of an analogous implantable biochemical sensor device (Abstract, Fig. 2A, para. [0005], para. [0007]). Cremers further teaches at least a portion of the graphene network material includes at least one of a biochemical receptor and a chemical receptor (para. [0009], “electrode may include an electrochemically active layer which may facilitate measuring the desired species at the desired potentials and/or currents”, para. [0018], “Deposition of enzymes, linkers, polymeres, etc. might occur through dipcoating, microprinting, electropolymerization, chemical polymerization and light induced polymerization”, para. [0041], “detected by the electrochemically active layer, i.e. the electrically conductive first layer 123”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the graphene network material taught by modified Kipke to explicitly include at least one of a biochemical receptor and a chemical receptor, as taught by Cremers. This is because Cremers teaches an electrochemically active layer applied to the conductive core allows for detection of specific biochemical molecules, neurotransmitters, metabolites, etc. (para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 32, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13.
Kipke suggests the use of a biochemical sensor layer (para. [0051], para. [0102]). However, modified Kipke does not explicitly disclose the device further comprises a biochemical sensor layer applied to the exposed sensor portions of the first and second sensor ends.
Cremers teaches of an analogous implantable biochemical sensor device (Abstract, Fig. 2A, para. [0005], para. [0007]). Cremers further the device comprises a biochemical sensor layer applied to the exposed sensor portions of the first and second sensor ends (para. [0009], “electrode may include an electrochemically active layer which may facilitate measuring the desired species at the desired potentials and/or currents”, para. [0018], “Deposition of enzymes, linkers, polymeres, etc. might occur through dipcoating, microprinting, electropolymerization, chemical polymerization and light induced polymerization”, para. [0041], “detected by the electrochemically active layer, i.e. the electrically conductive first layer 123”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by modified Kipke to explicitly include a biochemical sensor layer applied to the exposed sensor portions of the first and second sensor ends, as taught by Cremers. This is because Cremers teaches an electrochemically active layer applied to the conductive core allows for detection of specific biochemical molecules, neurotransmitters, metabolites, etc. (para. [0031]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipke et al. (US 20130090542 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Kipke, in view of Romero-Ortega et al. (US 20200155834 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Romero-Ortega, in view of Wan et al. (“Laser induced self-N-doped porous graphene as an electrochemical biosensor for femtomolar miRNA detection”), hereinafter referred to as Wan, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (US 20200359942 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Gao.
Regarding claim 23, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13.
However, modified Kipke does not explicitly disclose wherein the precursor material includes metal salt or metal-containing nanoparticles.
Gao further teaches that the graphene can include different materials, including different metal nanomaterials (para. [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the precursor material to additionally include metal salt or metal-containing nanoparticles, as taught by Gao. This is because Gao teaches that nanomaterials increase the surface area and the signal response of the electrode (para. [0054]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipke et al. (US 20130090542 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Kipke, in view of Romero-Ortega et al. (US 20200155834 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Romero-Ortega, in view of Wan et al. (“Laser induced self-N-doped porous graphene as an electrochemical biosensor for femtomolar miRNA detection”), hereinafter referred to as Wan, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Fernandes et al. (“Novel electrochemical sensor based on N-doped carbon nanotubes …”) (previously cited 10/11/2023), hereinafter referred to as Fernandes.
Regarding claim 24, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13.
However, modified Kipke does not explicitly disclose wherein the precursor material includes Fe(0) or Fe(II) or Fe(III).
Fernandes teaches an analogous modified electrode for the electrochemical determination of small biomolecules including dopamine (Abstract, pg. 208, left col., para 3-4). Fernandes further teaches that the graphene surface can be modified with Fe3O4 nanoparticles (Abstract, pg. 208, left col. para. 4; pg. 209-212, “Results and discussions”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the precursor material disclosed by modified Kipke to additionally include a Fe(0) or Fe(II) or Fe(III), as taught by Fernandes. This is because Fernandes teaches the graphene modified with Fe3O4 nanoparticles allow for an easy to perform, fast, robust, and electrochemically stable electrode when detecting biomolecules, such as dopamine (pg. 213, “Conclusions”).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipke et al. (US 20130090542 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Kipke, in view of Romero-Ortega et al. (US 20200155834 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Romero-Ortega, in view of Wan et al. (“Laser induced self-N-doped porous graphene as an electrochemical biosensor for femtomolar miRNA detection”), hereinafter referred to as Wan, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Rogers et al. (US 20200155047 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Rogers.
Regarding claim 33, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 13.
However, modified Kipke does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastomer comprises poly(Styrene-co-Ethylene-co-Butylene-Styrene) (SEBS).
Rogers teaches of an analogous device (Abstract, para. [0080]). Rogers further teaches the device includes an elastomer comprising poly(Styrene-co-Ethylene-co-Butylene-Styrene) (SEBS) (para. [0032], para. [0061], para. [0380]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elastomer taught by modified Kipke to explicitly comprise poly(Styrene-co-Ethylene-co-Butylene-Styrene) (SEBS), as taught by Rogers. This is because Rogers teaches SEBS is a suitable elastomer that can be stretched or deformed and returned to its original shape (para. [0032], para. [0061], para. [0380]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize SEBS is a simple substitution of the elastomers, taught by modified Kipke, while performing the same function.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipke et al. (US 20130090542 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Kipke, in view of Romero-Ortega et al. (US 20200155834 A1) (previously cited), hereinafter referred to as Romero-Ortega, in view of Wan et al. (“Laser induced self-N-doped porous graphene as an electrochemical biosensor for femtomolar miRNA detection”), hereinafter referred to as Wan as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Singh et al. (“Design and synthesis of nanoporous perylene bis-imide linked metalloporphyrin frameworks and their catalytic activity”), hereinafter referred to as Singh.
Regarding claim 38, modified Kipke discloses the device of claim 37.
However, modified Kipke does not explicitly disclose wherein the polyimide polymer includes metalloporphyrin, 5,10,15,20-tetrakis-(4'-aminophenyl) iron (III) porphyrin chloride or 5,10,15,20-tetrakis-(4'-aminophenyl) nickel (II) porphyrin.
Singh teaches an analogous framework catalyst (Abstract, pg. 1-2, I. Introduction). Singh further teaches the framework includes metalloporphyrin or 5,10,15,20-tetrakis-(4'-aminophenyl) iron (III) porphyrin chloride (pg. 2, 2.1, Catalyst Preparation, “metalloporphyrin frameworks …”, 2.1a, Synthesis of perylenebis-imide linked iron(III) porphyrin chloride, “refluxing 5,10,15,20-tetrakis-(4’-aminophenyl) iron (III) porphyrin chloride …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyimide polymer taught by modified Kipke to additionally include metalloporphyrin or 5,10,15,20-tetrakis-(4'-aminophenyl) iron (III) porphyrin chloride, as taught by Singh. This is because Singh teaches the materials are known to be good catalysts and have good applications in optoelectronic devices (Abstract, 4. Conclusion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of Remarks, filed 02/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13, 15, 18-20, and 22-36 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wan et al. (“Laser induced self-N-doped porous graphene as an electrochemical biosensor for femtomolar miRNA detection”), hereinafter referred to as Wan.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE W KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Jason M Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/K.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights