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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 2, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on March 2, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Currently, claims 1-12 and 18-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue, on page 7:
Laser ablation processes increase the roughness of a surface. Providing an electronic sensor array with laser-ablated electrically conductive material electrodes with one or more thin chemical coatings disposed over said electrically conductive material electrodes is not obvious in view of the fact that the roughness of a laser-ablated surface can present significant issues in the application and coverage of continuous thin chemical coatings (e.g., having a thickness of from about 0.1 nanometers and about 10 nanometers) applied thereto.
The Examiner responds:
Because Claim 1 is a device claim and not a method claim, the pattern of electrically conductive material electrodes does not need to be laser-ablated, and only needs to have the same structure as a laser-ablated pattern of electrically conductive material electrodes. As set forth in the rejection below, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the structure of the pattern of electrically conductive material electrodes. Also, Mahjouri-Samani teaches a thin chemical coating over the electrodes, despite the roughness of the overall surface.
The Applicants argue, on page 8:
Mahjouri-Samani et al. discloses a field-effect transistor biosensor for the detection of pathogens and methods for manufacturing the same. Mahjouri-Samani et al. teaches that the electrical contacts described therein are deposited on the substrate by photolithographic techniques in a cleanroom environment. See Mahjouri-Samani et al. Col. 1, lines 36-41; Fig. 9; and Col. 9, lines 6-21. Although Mahjouri-Samani et al. describes a step of pulsed laser ablation, this refers to the part of the method shown in Fig. 8 thereof where laser ablation is used to ablate the target (804) in a vacuum chamber and to deposit the amorphous precursor (812) of the 2D material onto the substrate. Laser ablation is not used to form electrodes. Because of the steps required, the biosensors made by the method of Mahjouri-Samani et al. would not be suitable for a rapid production process in large numbers outside of a cleanroom environment.
The Examiner responds:
As stated above, because Claim 1 is a device claim and not a method claim, the pattern of electrically conductive material electrodes does not need to be laser-ablated, and only needs to have the same structure as a laser-ablated pattern of electrically conductive material electrodes. Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches this structure.
The Applicants argue, on pages 8-9:
Muratore et al. (US 2018/0308692 Al) is directed to methods of making transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) (e.g., molybdenum sulfide (MoS2)) on a stretchable substrate. The method includes magnetron sputtering (that is, physical vapor deposition, typically of a solid material and under vacuum) MoS2 onto a stretchable substrate such as a stretchable polymeric material at low temperature to form a film precursor, and illumination (e.g., laser) annealing the film precursor to form high quality crystalline material, e.g., MoS2. Muratore does not teach or disclose an electronic sensor array comprising, among other things, a substrate having one or more coatings of patterned electrical conductive material disposed over one side of the substrate in the form of a laser-ablated pattern of electrically conductive material electrodes.
Hoffman (US 10429381) discloses Chemically-sensitive Field Effect Transistors
(ChemFETs) that are designed for detecting various analytes in chemical and biological samples. Hoffman states that the ChemFETs described therein are preferably fabricated using semiconductor fabrication methods on a semiconductor wafer, and in preferred embodiments, on top of an integrated circuit structure made using semiconductor fabrication methods. Semiconductor fabrication methods involve: I) fabricating silicon into disc-shaped wafers; 2) doping the wafers with impurities to modify their electrical properties; 3) creating patterns on the wafers using photolithography; 4) etching unwanted material and depositing layers of material to form the semiconductor structure. Hoffman does not teach or disclose an electronic sensor array comprising, among other things, a substrate having one or more coatings of patterned electrical conductive material disposed over one side of the substrate in the form of a laser-ablated pattern of electrically conductive material electrodes.
The Examiner responds:
Similar to what is stated above and as set forth in the rejection below, Muratore and Hoffman are not needed to teach that the pattern of electrodes is laser-ablated.
The Applicants argue, on page 9:
Muthukumar differs from the invention described in Claim I in that in Muthukumar the semiconducting nanostructures appear to be in the form of particles (and are not in the form of a continuous film). For example, in paragraph [0203], Muthukumar states that "The nanostructures may be elongated, and may include nanorods or nanopillars. In some embodiments, the nanostructures may have an aspect ratio of about I :4. The nanostructures may be formed having different shapes, sizes, dimensions, and/or aspect ratios depending on the growth conditions." These particles appear to be synthesized in a separate process, then applied to the contacts or in some cases a small particle is synthesized, applied to the surface, then a process is used to grow the small particle into a larger particle. These are all solution-based processes where particles (in this case, semiconducting nanostructures) are suspended in a liquid and applied to the surface. As a result, the semiconducting nanostructures do not form a continuous film. Because of these process requirements, the multi-configurable sensing array of Muthukumar would not be suitable for a rapid production process in large numbers.
The Examiner responds:
As set forth in the rejection below, Mahjouri-Samani is used to teach the limitation of a continuous chemical film over the electrodes. Muthukumar is not needed to teach this limitation or structure and is only used to teach that each of said two or more sensors have a different detection range. Muthukumar also does not explicitly teach against the chemical coating being a continuous film.
Thus, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar renders obvious the limitations of amended claim 1. As a result, the rejection of claims 1-12 and 18-22 is maintained.
All other arguments have been fully addressed in prior Office Actions or in the rejections set forth below.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “from about 0.1 nanometers and about 10 nanometers” in line 7 of step (ii) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the thickness should be about 0.1 nanometers or about 10 nanometers. For the purposes of examination with regard to the prior art, this term will be treated as --from about 0.1 nanometers to about 10 nanometers— (see specification [0048]).
Claims 2-12 and 18-22, because they are dependent on claim 1, inherit the deficiency of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahjouri-Samani et al. (US 12123845) in view of Muratore et al. (US 20180308692), Hoffman (US 10429381), and Muthukumar (US 20210325380).
Regarding claim 1, Mahjouri-Samani teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, an electronic sensor comprising:
a substrate (102) having a first side (top side) and a second side (bottom side), said substrate's first side comprising:
one or more coatings of patterned electrical conductive material (106 and 108; col. 4, lines 20-25 and 50-55) disposed over said substrate's first side, in the form of a laser-ablated pattern of electrically conductive material electrodes that comprise a pair of electrically conductive material electrodes that have a gap between the electrodes (106 and 108; see Fig. 1), said patterned electrical conductive material comprising a material selected from the group consisting of poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate, poly(pyrrole), polycarbazoles, polyindoles, polyazepines, Cr, Mo, Ti, Sc, Ni, V, Hf, W, Nb, Au, Ag, Cu, and Pt and mixtures thereof (col. 4, lines 20-25; Ti, Au, or Cu), and
one or more chemical coatings disposed over said electrically conductive material electrodes in the form of a continuous film (104; Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 55-65; 104 can be deposited over instead of under the electrodes; also note that Examiner interprets the continuous film as only needing to be disposed over one pair of electrodes; see Present Application’s Specification [0077] discussing the film being disconnected where the sensors are isolated), said one or more chemical coatings each independently comprising a transition metal and an element selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, selenium, phosphorous and mixtures thereof (col. 4, lines 5-15; col. 9, lines 1-5), said one or more chemical coatings each independently having a thickness of from about 0.1 nanometers and about 10 nanometers (col. 4, lines 5-15; col. 9, lines 1-5; it is known in the art that a monolayer MoS2 sheet is about 0.65 nm and that a few-layer MoS2 sheet, which is up to around 10 layers, is about 7 nm) and comprising at least one of an amorphous, nanocrystalline, microcrystalline or crystalline region (col. 9, lines 1-5), at least a portion of said one or more chemical coatings being an annealed chemical coating (col. 9, lines 1-5); and
one or more types of functional molecules and/or one or more complexes comprising one or more types of functional molecules and one or more target molecules attached to at least a portion of said annealed coated substrate to form at least one sensor (Fig. 9; col. 9, lines 20-50).
Mahjouri-Samani does not explicitly teach that the pattern of electrically conductive material electrodes comprises a plurality of pairs of electrically conductive material electrodes and that said pairs of electrically conductive material electrodes are spaced apart from each other over said substrate; that at least a portion of said one or more chemical coatings is a pattern illumination-based annealed chemical coating; an electronic sensor array, said electronic sensor array being: 1) a multiplex array and/or 2) a sensor array comprising two or more sensors, wherein each of said two or more sensors have a different detection range.
In a similar field of endeavor, Muratore teaches that at least a portion of said one or more chemical coatings is a pattern illumination-based annealed chemical coating ([0028]-[0030]), because “[t]he methods and resulting MoS2 films are suitable for flexible electronics such as two-dimensional semiconductors. These two-dimensional semiconductors possess a unique combination of electronic and mechanical properties for building flexible devices, such as a large, direct band gap and having up to about 10% mechanical strain.” ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to modify the electronic sensor of Mahjouri-Samani with the pattern illumination-based annealed chemical coating of Muratore, in order to form 2D semiconductor films suitable for flexible electronics ([0036]).
Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore does not explicitly teach that the pattern of electrically conductive material electrodes comprise a plurality of pairs of electrically conductive material electrodes; and that said pairs of electrically conductive material electrodes are spaced apart from each other over said substrate; and an electronic sensor array, said electronic sensor array being: 1) a multiplex array and/or 2) a sensor array comprising two or more sensors, wherein each of said two or more sensors have a different detection range.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hoffman teaches, in Fig. 15B, that the pattern of electrically conductive material electrodes comprises a plurality of pairs of electrically conductive material electrodes (22 and 24; col. 44, lines 15-25); that said pairs of electrically conductive material electrodes (22 and 24) are spaced apart from each other over said substrate (see Fig. 15B); and an electronic sensor array, said electronic sensor array being: 1) a multiplex array and/or 2) a sensor array comprising two or more sensors (col. 81, lines 1-15; sensor array), in order to “provide for rapid data acquisition from small sensors to large and dense arrays of sensors. Such arrays may be employed to detect the presence and/or concentration changes of various analyte types in a wide variety of chemical and/or biological processes” (col. 99, lines 30-40).
It would have been obvious to modify the electronic sensor of Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore with the sensor array configuration of Hoffman, in order to provide for rapid data acquisition from small sensors to large and dense arrays of sensors, and such arrays may be employed to detect the presence and/or concentration changes of various analyte types in a wide variety of chemical and/or biological processes (col. 99, lines 30-40).
Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore and Hoffman does not explicitly teach that each of said two or more sensors have a different detection range.
In a similar field of endeavor, Muthukumar teaches that each of said two or more sensors have a different detection range ([0040]), because “[t]he multiplexed and simultaneous detection of multiple biomarkers on a common sensing platform obviates the need to have multiple discrete immunoassay strips for detecting different biomarkers, and may also eliminate the need to collect multiple samples for testing” ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to modify the electronic sensor array of Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore and Hoffman with the different detection ranges of Muthukumar, because the multiplexed and simultaneous detection of multiple biomarkers on a common sensing platform obviates the need to have multiple discrete immunoassay strips for detecting different biomarkers, and may also eliminate the need to collect multiple samples for testing ([0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. Muratore further teaches that said at least one sensor comprises b.) at least one chemical coating comprising at least one region that is amorphous, nanocrystalline, microcrystalline or crystalline said at least one region being pattern illumination-based annealed two or more times ([0024], “radiation source may be controlled [selectively turned on and off]”).
Regarding claim 4, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar further teaches that for said at least one sensor, said one or more functional molecules are biomaterials selected from the group consisting of peptides, nanozymes, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates and lectins, nucleic acids and mixtures thereof (Mahjouri-Samani; col. 5, lines 50-55; protein) (Muthukumar, [0144]).
Regarding claim 5, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. Muthukumar further teaches that for said at least one sensor, said one or more functional molecules' attachment to said pattern illumination-based anneal coated substrate comprises at least one of a covalent bond, electrostatic bond or a covalent and electrostatic bond ([0175], covalent).
Regarding claim 7, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. Muthukumar further teaches that for said at least one sensor said multiplex array comprises from 2 to about 100 sensors, and/or said sensor array comprising two or more sensors having a different detection range comprises from 2 to about 100 sensors ([0040], two sensors).
Regarding claim 8, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 7. Muthukumar further teaches that for said at least one sensor said multiplex array comprises from 2 to about 25 sensors, and/or said sensor array comprising two or more sensors having a different detection range comprises from 2 to about 25 sensors ([0040], two sensors).
Regarding claim 9, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 8. Muthukumar further teaches that for said at least one sensor said multiplex array comprises from 2 to about 10 sensors, and/or said sensor array comprising two or more sensors having a different detection range comprises from 2 to about 10 sensors ([0040], two sensors).
Regarding claim 10, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. Muthukumar further teaches that each of said sensors of said multiplex array is capable of detecting different analytes ([0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. Muthukumar further teaches that said sensor array comprises two or more sensors, each of said two or more sensors having a different detection range ([0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. Muthukumar further teaches said sensor array being a multiplex array and comprising two or more groups of sensors, each group of sensors comprising two or more sensors, each of said two or more sensors in each said group having a different detection range and each group of sensors being capable of detecting different analytes ([0047]-[0048], [0326]).
Regarding claim 18, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. Muthukumar further teaches on the second side of said substrate, a multiplex array and/or a sensor array comprising two or more sensors, wherein each of said two or more sensors have a different detection range ([0326]).
Regarding claim 19, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. Hoffman further teaches, in Fig. 15B, that the gap (between 22 and 24) is covered by said one or more chemical coatings (30; col. 63, line 60 – col. 64, line 10).
Muratore further teaches that said pattern illumination-based annealed chemical coating forms a crystallized region of said one or more chemical coatings over said gap (Muratore, claims 14-15).
Regarding claim 20, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 19. Hoffman further teaches, in Fig. 15B, that at least a portion of said one or more chemical coatings (30) are removed around the crystallized region (channel region 26) to separate said spaced apart pairs of electrically conductive material electrodes (22/24) that comprise said sensors.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahjouri-Samani et al. (US 12123845) in view of Muratore et al. (US 20180308692), Hoffman (US 10429381), and Muthukumar (US 20210325380), and further in view of Kukkar et al. (“A New Electrolytic Synthesis Method for Few Layered MoS2 Nanosheets and Their Robust Biointerfacing With Reduced Antibodies.” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 8, 16555-16563 (2016). DOI: 10.1021/acsami.6b03079), cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 3/24/2025.
Regarding claim 3, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. Muratore further teaches that a.) said substrate of said coated substrate is selected from glass, polymer and mixtures thereof ([0025]).
Mahjouri-Samani further teaches that c) said one or more chemical coatings comprises a material selected from the group consisting of MoS2, WS2, MoSe2, WSe2 and mixtures thereof (col. 4, lines 10-15; col. 9, lines 1-5; MoS2 or WSe2).
Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar does not explicitly teach that for said at least one sensor: b) said one or more coatings of patterned electrical conductive material is a coating of Mo, a coating of Cr and a second coating of Au over said coating of Cr or a coating of Ti and a second coating of Au over said coating of Ti.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kukkar teaches that Ti/Au source and drain metal contacts are fabricated by e-beam evaporation (see Fig. 5 caption line 3), and that said one or more coatings of patterned electrical conductive material is a coating of Cr and a second coating of Au over said coating of Cr or a coating of Ti and a second coating of Au over said coating of Ti (see Supporting information, pg. S-2, a coating of Ti and a second coating of Au over said coating of Ti), for the purposes of “(ii) application of the synthesized MoS2 nanosheets for the development of a robust immunosensor, and (iii) highly sensitive and wide linear range of PSA detection” (pg. 16562, section 3.3. Application of the MoS2/Reduced Antibody Platform for Immunosensing of PSA).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic sensor array of Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar with the electrical conductive material of Kukkar, for the purposes of applying synthesized MoS2 nanosheets for the development of a robust immunosensor and for a highly sensitive and wide linear range of PSA detection.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahjouri-Samani et al. (US 12123845) in view of Muratore et al. (US 20180308692), Hoffman (US 10429381), and Muthukumar (US 20210325380), and further in view of Lee et al. (“Two-dimensional Layered MoS2 Biosensors Enable Highly Sensitive Detection of Biomolecules.” Sci Rep 4, 7352 (2014). DOI: 10.1038/srep07352).
Regarding claim 6, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar does not explicitly teach that for said at least one sensor, said one or more functional molecule's concentration on said pattern illumination-based anneal coated substrate is from about 0.001 nanograms per square centimeter to about 1,000 nanograms per square centimeter. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that concentration of functional molecules would impact sensitivity (Lee, see Fig. 2c how concentration of functional molecule IgG impacts off-current and Fig. 6 how off-current impacts sensitivity).
The specific claimed concentrations, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” concentrations disclosed by Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, Muthukumar, and Lee that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired sensitivity, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as said one or more functional molecule's concentration on said pattern illumination-based anneal coated substrate being from about 0.001 nanograms per square centimeter to about 1,000 nanograms per square centimeter is used, as already suggested by Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, Muthukumar, and Lee.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the concentrations stated and since these concentrations are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, Muthukumar, and Lee.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed concentrations or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahjouri-Samani et al. (US 12123845) in view of Muratore et al. (US 20180308692), Hoffman (US 10429381), Muthukumar (US 20210325380), and further in view of Li et al. (“Fibroin-like Peptides Self-Assembling on Two-Dimensional Materials as a Molecular Scaffold for Potential Biosensing.” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 11, 20670−20677 (2019). DOI: 10.1021/acsami.9b04079).
Regarding claim 21, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar does not explicitly teach that said one or types of functional molecules and/or one or more complexes comprising one or more types of functional molecules and one or more target molecules are attached to said pattern illumination-based anneal coated substrate by bonding a peptide to said pattern illumination-based anneal coated substrate and attaching said one or more functional molecules to said peptide.
In a similar field of endeavor, Li teaches that said one or types of functional molecules and/or one or more complexes comprising one or more types of functional molecules and one or more target molecules (page 20675, section 3.3.2., streptavidin as a functional molecule) are attached to said pattern illumination-based anneal coated substrate (Abstract, MoS2) by bonding a peptide (page 20675, section 3.3.2., bio-Y5Y/Y5Y) to said pattern illumination-based anneal coated substrate and attaching said one or more functional molecules to said peptide (Abstract and page 20675, section 3.3.2.), in order to “improve the stability of peptides as a molecular scaffold in biosensing” (page 20670, col. 2).
It would have been obvious to modify the electronic sensor array of Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar with the attaching of Li, in order to improve the stability of peptides as a molecular scaffold in biosensing (page 20670, col. 2).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahjouri-Samani et al. (US 12123845) in view of Muratore et al. (US 20180308692), Hoffman (US 10429381), Muthukumar (US 20210325380), and further in view of Naylor et al. (“Scalable Production of Molybdenum Disulfide Based Biosensors.” ACS Nano, 10(6), 6173-6179 (2016). DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.6b02137).
Regarding claim 22, Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar teaches the limitations of claim 1. Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar does not explicitly teach that said functional molecules' attachment to said pattern illumination-based anneal coated substrate comprises an electrostatic bond.
In a similar field of endeavor, Naylor teaches that said functional molecules' attachment to said pattern illumination-based anneal coated substrate comprises an electrostatic bond (page 6176, col. 2), for the purpose of “a solid-state drug testing platform for rapid readout of the interactions between novel drugs and their intended protein targets” (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to modify the electronic sensor array of Mahjouri-Samani in view of Muratore, Hoffman, and Muthukumar with the attaching of Naylor, for the purpose of a solid-state drug testing platform for rapid readout of the interactions between novel drugs and their intended protein targets (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA HEERA SON whose telephone number is 703-756-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30-9 PM ET.
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, Yara Green can be reached on 571-270-3035. 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.
/ERIKA H SON/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights