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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 04/06/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the current Office action. Of these, claim 10 is withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 were amended by Applicant.
Status of the Rejection
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The objections to claims 1, 4, and 6-7 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 4, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Shen are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-7, 12-16, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hoffman are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 11, 14-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Chen are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 8-9 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Abbreviations
FET – Field-Effect Transistor
gFET/GFET – graphene Field-Effect Transistor
PET – polyethylene terephthalate
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 line 13 recites “surface;”, but should recite “surface; and” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 20 line 13 recites “material. to”, but should recite “material[[.]] to” to correct the typo;
Claim 20 line 14 recites “thereby thereby”, but should recite “thereby [[thereby]]” to remove the duplicated word.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement due to the inclusion of new matter. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, claim 1 lines 10-11 and claim 16 line 15 recite the limitation “a range comprising 20 volts or -20 volts”. As currently drafted, this limitation is drawn to any range applied by the automated control that includes at least one of the values “20 volts” or “-20 volts”. However, the specification only provides support for the automated control to supply a voltage between 20 and -20 volts (e.g., Fig. 4B), not every range that includes at least one of the values “20 volts” or “-20 volts” as currently claimed. The limitation “a range comprising 20 volts or -20 volts” is therefore considered to be new matter not supported by the specification as originally filed (see MPEP § 2163.05(III)). Claims 1 and 16 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement due to the inclusion of new matter.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 line 13 recites the limitation “a range comprising 20 volts and -20 volts”. As currently drafted, this limits the range applied by the automated control to any range including the values “20 volts” and “-20 volts”. However, the specification only provides support for the automated control to supply a voltage between 20 and -20 volts (e.g., Fig. 4B), not every range that includes both the values “20 volts” or “-20 volts” as currently claimed. The limitation “a range comprising 20 volts and -20 volts” is therefore considered to be new matter not supported by the specification as originally filed (see MPEP § 2163.05(III)). Claim 20 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement due to the inclusion of new matter.
Regarding claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-19, claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-19 depend from claims 1 or 16, and therefore incorporate the new matter recited in those claims. Claims 2-15 and 17-19 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement due to the inclusion of new matter for the same reasons enumerated for those claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-6, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (“Field Effect Modulation of Electrocatalytic Hydrogen Evolution at Back-Gated Two-Dimensional MoS2 Electrodes” Nano Lett. 2019, 19, 6118−6123 and SI).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a device having a controlled interaction with respect to molecules in a surrounding aqueous medium comprising:
a substrate having a conductive surface (“Gate (p-Si)” Fig 1a, see also § S2-S3);
a dielectric layer formed on the conductive surface (“Dielectric (300 nm SiO2)” Fig. 1, see also § S2-S3);
an electrically dopable nanomaterial formed over the dielectric layer (“Monolayer MoS2” Fig. 1, see also § S2-S3), configured to become electrically doped due to a shift in the Fermi level in response to an electric field (“this field effect modification of the 2D working electrode is akin to chemical doping in that the offset between the Fermi level (EF) and the band edges is controllably changed” p. 6118 para. 1), and having a selective electroadsorption interaction with the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping (see Fig. 5, which shows the hydrogen adsorption energy changes as a function of the gate potential); and
an automated control (“Keithley 2400 and 2611 source meters were used to apply VBG” § S5), configured to control a voltage across the dielectric layer in at values of both -20 and 20 V (Figs. 2, 3, and S6), values within the claimed ranges, to thereby alter the electrical doping of the electrically dopable nanomaterial and the electroadsorption of the molecules (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Wang further teaches the surrounding molecules comprise polar molecules (“0.5 M H2SO4” § S5 i.e., sulfuric acid, water, and hydronium ions), the electrically dopable nanomaterials comprises a 2D material (“2D working electrode” p. 6118 para. 1, see also title), and the interaction comprises an absorption of the polar molecules to the 2D material in response to changes in the electric doping of the 2D material (see below).
Regarding the limitation “the interaction comprises an absorption of the polar molecules to the 2D material in response to changes in the electric doping of the 2D material”, the instant specification indicates that application of a gate potential to a field-effect transistor comprising 2-D MoS2 results in a change in the electroadsorption interaction with polar molecules e.g., water (p. 59). Therefore, as Wang teaches the surrounding molecules comprise polar molecules, and the electrically dopable nanomaterial is 2-D MoS2, it is considered that the interaction of Wang necessarily comprises an absorption of the polar molecules to the 2D material in response to changes in the electric doping of the 2D material (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 4, Wang anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Wang further teaches the molecules are dissolved in the aqueous medium (“0.5 M H2SO4” § S5 i.e., sulfuric acid and hydronium dissolved in water), and the interaction comprises altering an orientation of the dissolved molecules (see below).
Regarding the limitation “the interaction comprises altering an orientation of the dissolved molecules”, the instant specification indicates that altering the gate potential applied to a field-effect transistor comprising 2-D MoS2 results in a change in the electroadsorption interaction with polar molecules (p. 59) with a corresponding change in orientation (p. 58). Therefore, as Wang teaches the surrounding dissolved molecules comprise polar molecules (i.e., sulfuric acid and hydronium), and the electrically dopable nanomaterial is 2-D MoS2, it is considered that the electroadsorption interaction of Wang necessarily comprises altering an orientation of the dissolved molecules (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 5, Wang anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches the electrically dopable nanomaterial is graphene (Fig. S9).
Regarding claim 6, Wang anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches the electrically dopable nanomaterial is molybdenum disulfide (e.g., title).
Regarding claim 14, Wang anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches the electrically dopable nanomaterial is configured to chemisorb the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium selectively in dependence on the electric field (“the coupled adsorption and charge transfer step,” p. 6120 para. bridging cols. 1-2, and see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Wang anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches the electrically dopable nanomaterial comprises a semiconductor electrically dopable nanomaterial (“MoS2 electrode” Fig. S6 caption), the device further comprising an electronic sensor configured to sense an electrical conductivity through the semiconductor electrically dopable nanomaterial (“Sheet Conductance” Fig. S6 and Fig. S6 caption, see also p. 6119 para. bridging cols. 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches a device having a controlled interaction with an aqueous medium comprising molecules, comprising:
a dielectric layer (“Dielectric (300 nm SiO2)” Fig. 1, see also § S2-S3);
an electrically dopable nanomaterial (“Monolayer MoS2” Fig. 1, see also § S2-S3) having a surface exposed to the aqueous medium (“Flowing Electrolyte” Fig. 1a, see also § S5), formed over the dielectric layer (see Fig. 1a), the surface of the electrically dopable nanomaterial being configured to have a selective interaction with the aqueous medium dependent on an electrical doping due to an electric field through the dielectric layer, comprising at least electroadsorption of the molecules (see Fig. 5, which shows the hydrogen adsorption energy changes as a function of the gate potential);
a conductive material under the dielectric layer (“Gate (p-Si)” Fig 1a, see also § S2-S3) configured to impose the electric field through the dielectric layer on the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“VBG” Fig. 1a), and to selectively modify the selective interaction of the surface of with the aqueous medium comprising altering an orientation of the aqueous medium at the surface (see below); and
an automated control (“Keithley 2400 and 2611 source meters were used to apply VBG” § S5), configured to control a magnitude of a voltage across the dielectric layer at an electric potential at values of both 20 and -20 V (Figs. 2, 3, and S6), values within the claimed ranges, to thereby alter the electrical doping of the electrically dopable nanomaterial and the electroadsorption of the molecules (see Fig. 5, which shows the hydrogen adsorption energy changes as a function of the gate potential).
Regarding the limitation “to selectively modify the selective interaction of the surface of with the aqueous medium comprising altering an orientation of the aqueous medium at the surface”, the instant specification indicates that altering the gate potential applied to a field-effect transistor comprising 2-D MoS2 results in a change in the electroadsorption interaction with polar molecules e.g., water (p. 59), with a corresponding change in orientation (p. 58). Therefore, as Wang teaches the surrounding molecules comprise water, and the electrically dopable nanomaterial is 2-D MoS2, it is considered that the electric field applied by Wang necessarily alters the orientation of the aqueous medium at the surface. Therefore, Wang anticipates the limitation “to selectively modify the selective interaction of the surface of with the aqueous medium comprising altering an orientation of the aqueous medium at the surface” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches a system comprising:
an electrically dopable nanomaterial (“Monolayer MoS2” Fig. 1, see also § S2-S3) having an electrical doping selectively dependent on an electrical field imposed on the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“this field effect modification of the 2D working electrode is akin to chemical doping in that the offset between the Fermi level (EF) and the band edges is controllably changed” p. 6118 para. 1), and being configured to selectively interact with molecules in a surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping (see Fig. 5, which shows the hydrogen adsorption energy changes as a function of the gate potential);
a conductive substrate (“Gate (p-Si)” Fig 1a, see also § S2-S3), configured to generate the electric field in the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“VBG” Fig. 1a);
a dielectric material formed between the conductive substrate and the electrically dopable nanomaterial, configured to electrically insulate the conductive surface from the electrically dopable nanomaterial, and to communicate the electric field from the conductive substrate to the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“Dielectric (300 nm SiO2)” Fig. 1, see also § S2-S3); and
an automated control, configured to control a magnitude of the electric field (“Keithley 2400 and 2611 source meters were used to apply VBG” § S5), by imposing a voltage potential at values of both -20 and 20 V, values within the claimed ranges, across the dielectric material (Figs. 2, 3, and S6), to thereby alter the electrical doping of the electrically dopable nanomaterial (see Fig. 5).
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.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Field Effect Modulation of Electrocatalytic Hydrogen Evolution at Back-Gated Two-Dimensional MoS2 Electrodes” Nano Lett. 2019, 19, 6118−6123 and SI) in view of Yang et al. (“Ultrafine Graphene Nanomesh with Large On/Off Ratio for High-Performance Flexible Biosensors” Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1604096).
Regarding claim 2, Wang anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), above, incorporated herein by reference.
Wang further teaches the dielectric layer is an insulator (“Dielectric (300 nm SiO2)” Fig. 1, see also § S2-S3).
Wang does not teach the conductive surface is formed from a metal.
However, Yang teaches a field effect transistor (FET) (abstract), wherein the conductive surface is formed from gold, a metal, (“top gate electrodes (Cr (10 nm)/Au (50 nm))” § titled “FET fabrication” p. S4) deposited on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (“GNM based FET devices were fabricated on the flexible PET film” Id. and see Fig. 3a), which provides the predictable benefit of imparting flexibility to the FET (abstract).
As Wang and Yang each teach field effect transistors, Wang and Yang are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the FET of Wang, such that the conductive surface is gold deposited on PET, as taught by Yang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of imparting flexibility on the FET, as taught by Yang. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., gold on PET as the gate electrode material in a FET) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 17, Wang anticipates the limitations of claim 16, as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), above, incorporated herein by reference.
Wang further teaches the electrically dopable nanomaterial is 2D molybdenum disulfide (e.g., title).
Wang does not teach the conductive material is a metal.
However, Yang teaches a FET (abstract), wherein the substrate comprises gold, a metal, (“top gate electrodes (Cr (10 nm)/Au (50 nm))” § titled “FET fabrication” p. S4) deposited on PET (“GNM based FET devices were fabricated on the flexible PET film” Id. and see Fig. 3a), which provides the predictable benefit of imparting flexibility to the FET (abstract).
As Wang and Yang each teach field effect transistors, Wang and Yang are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the FET of Wang, such that the conductive surface is gold deposited on PET, as taught by Yang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of imparting flexibility on the FET, as taught by Yang. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., gold on PET as the gate electrode material in a FET) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pat. Pub. 2012/0214172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitations of claim 1 have been interpreted as “a range of 0-20 or -20-0 volts”.
Chen teaches a device (“field-effect transistor” title) having a controlled interaction with respect to molecules in a surrounding aqueous medium (abstract and paras. 57 and 61), comprising:
a substrate having a conductive surface (“an Si wafer,” para. 104 and Fig. 1);
a dielectric layer formed on the conductive surface (“a top layer of thermally-formed SiO2” para. 104 and Fig. 1);
an electrically dopable nanomaterial formed over the dielectric layer (“nitrogen-doped graphene (NG)” para. 93 and “TiN/NG nanohybrid sheets” para. 104), configured to become electrically doped due to a shift in the Fermi level in response to an electric field (“electron and hole doping” para. 71 and Fig. 12a, and “gate voltage Vg” para. 66), and having a selective electroadsorption interaction with the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping (see below); and
an automated control (“a Keithley 2602 SourceMeter” para. 66), configured to control a voltage across the dielectric layer over a range of 40 to -40 volts, a range encompassing the claimed ranges (“gate voltage Vg from -40.0 to +40.0 V” Id.), to thereby alter the electrical doping of the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“electron and hole doping” para. 71 and Fig. 12a) and the electroadsorption of the molecules (see below).
A range in the prior art encompassing a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding the limitation “having a selective electroadsorption interaction with the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping”, the instant specification indicates that applying a gate voltage to a graphene Field-Effect Transistor (gFET) i.e., a system with the structure recited by Chen, results in the selective electroadsorption of molecules in a surrounding aqueous medium to the graphene (e.g., p. 49-50). Therefore, as Chen teaches applying a gate voltage to a gFET, the graphene in the system of Chen necessarily has a selective electroadsorption interaction with the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the applied electric field.
Chen therefore reads on the limitation “having a selective electroadsorption interaction with the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the applied electric field” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding the limitation “configured to control a voltage across the dielectric layer over a range of 0-20 or -20-0 volts, to thereby alter … the electroadsorption of the molecules”, the instant specification indicates that controlling the gate voltage of a gFET in a range of -20 to 20 volts results in altering the electroadsorption of molecules (e.g., p. 49-51).
Therefore, because the automated control of Chen is configured to control the magnitude of the electric field applied to the gFET in a range between -40 and 40 volts, the automated control of Chen is considered to necessarily also be configured to alter the electroadsorption of the molecules. Chen therefore reads on the limitation “configured to control a voltage across the dielectric layer over a range of 0-20 or -20-0 volts, to thereby alter … the electroadsorption of the molecules” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 3, Chen further teaches the surrounding molecules comprise polar molecules (“water” paras. 57 and 61), the electrically dopable nanomaterial comprises a 2D material (“nitrogen-doped graphene (NG)” para. 93), and the interaction comprises an absorption of the polar molecules to the 2D material in response to changes in the electric doping of the 2D material (see below).
Regarding the limitation “the interaction comprises an absorption of the polar molecules to the 2D material in response to changes in the electric doping of the 2D material”, the instant specification indicates that altering the gate potential applied to a gFET results in a change of the adsorption of polar molecules on the graphene (e.g., p. 49-51).
Therefore, as Chen teaches altering the gate potential applied to a gFET, the interaction of Chen necessarily comprises an absorption of polar molecules to the 2D material in response to the changes in the electric doping of the 2D material.
Chen therefore reads on the limitation “the interaction comprises an absorption of the polar molecules to the 2D material in response to changes in the electric doping of the 2D material” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 4, Chen renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Chen further teaches the molecules are dissolved in the aqueous medium (“0.1 M PBS (pH 7.0) solution containing different concentrations of NADH” para. 99, see also para.104), and the interaction comprises altering an orientation of the dissolved molecules (see below).
Regarding the limitation “the interaction comprises altering an orientation of the dissolved molecules”, the instant specification indicates that altering the gate potential applied to a gFET results in a change in the electroadsorption interaction with polar molecules (p. 59) with a corresponding change in orientation (p. 58). Therefore, as Chen teaches altering the gate potential applied to a gFET, it is considered that the interaction caused by the device of Chen necessarily comprises altering an orientation of the dissolved molecules.
Chen therefore reads on the limitation “the interaction comprises altering an orientation of the dissolved molecules” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 5, Chen renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above. Chen further teaches the electrically dopable nanomaterial is graphene (“nitrogen-doped graphene (NG)” para. 93).
Regarding claim 11, Chen renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Chen further teaches catalytic nanoparticles proximate to the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“TiN nanoparticles anchored on the NG” para. 96, see also para. 104) configured to selectively catalyze a reaction of at least a portion of the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium (“The TiN/NG nanohybrids additionally showed excellent catalytic activity toward oxidation of NADH” para. 100, see also para. 99).
Regarding claim 14, Chen renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Chen further teaches the electrically dopable nanomaterial is configured to physiosorb or chemisorb the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium selectively in dependence on the electric field (see below).
Regarding the limitation “the electrically dopable nanomaterial is configured to physiosorb or chemisorb the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium selectively in dependence on the electric field”, the instant specification indicates that altering the gate potential applied to a gFET results in the selective physiosorption or chemisorption of molecules from a surrounding aqueous medium on the graphene (e.g., p. 50).
Therefore, as Chen teaches altering the gate potential applied to a gFET, the graphene of Chen is necessarily configured to physiosorb or chemisorb the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium selectively in dependence on the electric field.
Chen therefore reads on the limitation “the electrically dopable nanomaterial is configured to physisorb or chemisorb the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium selectively in dependence on the electric field”.
Regarding claim 15, Chen renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Chen further teaches the electrically dopable nanomaterial comprises a semiconductor electrically dopable nanomaterial (“graphene-based sheets” para. 40), and an electronic sensor (“a lactate biosensor” para. 100, see also para. 104) configured to sense an electrical conductivity through the semiconductor electrically dopable nanomaterial (para. 100).
Regarding claim 16, for the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 16 has been interpreted as “a range of 0-20 or -20-0 volts”.
Chen teaches a device (“field-effect transistor” title) having a controlled interaction with an aqueous medium comprising molecules (abstract and para. 57), comprising:
a dielectric layer (“a passivation layer includes SiO2” para. 51 and Fig. 1);
an electrically dopable nanomaterial having a surface (“nitrogen-doped graphene (NG)” para. 93) exposed to the aqueous medium (para. 100), formed over the dielectric layer (“The distance between the TiN/NG nanohybrid sheet and the SiO2 surface is around 50 nm.” para. 104), the surface of the electrically dopable nanomaterial being configured to have a selective interaction with the aqueous medium dependent on an electrical doping due to an electric field through the dielectric layer comprising at least one of electroadsorption of the molecules and electrowetting of the surface with the aqueous medium (see below);
a conductive material under the dielectric layer (“an Si wafer with a top layer of thermally-formed SiO2” para. 104) configured to impose the electric field through the dielectric layer on the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“gate voltage Vg from -40.0 to +40.0 V” para. 66), and to selectively modify the selective interaction of the surface with the aqueous medium comprising altering an orientation of the molecules of the aqueous medium at the surface (see below); and
an automated control (“a Keithley 2602 SourceMeter” para. 66), configured to control a voltage across the dielectric layer over a range of 40 to -40 volts, a range encompassing the claimed ranges (“gate voltage Vg from -40.0 to +40.0 V” Id.), to thereby alter the electrical doping of the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“electron and hole doping” para. 71 and Fig. 12a) and the electroadsorption of the molecules (see below).
A range in the prior art encompassing a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding the limitation “the surface of the electrically dopable nanomaterial being configured to have a selective interaction with the aqueous medium dependent on an electrical doping due to an electric field through the dielectric layer comprising at least one of electroadsorption of the molecules and electrowetting of the surface with the aqueous medium”, the instant specification indicates that applying a gate voltage to a graphene Field-Effect Transistor (gFET) i.e., a system with the structure recited by Chen, results in a selective interaction between the aqueous medium and the graphene dependent on said gate voltage (e.g., p. 49-50), the interaction comprising electroadsorption of the molecules and/or electrowetting of the surface with the aqueous medium (Id.).
Therefore, as Chen teaches applying a gate voltage to a gFET, the graphene in the system of Chen necessarily has a selective interaction with the aqueous medium dependent on an electrical doping due to an electric field through the dielectric layer comprising at least one of electroadsorption of the molecules and electrowetting of the surface with the aqueous medium.
Chen therefore reads on the limitation “the surface of the electrically dopable nanomaterial being configured to have a selective interaction with the aqueous medium dependent on an electrical doping due to an electric field through the dielectric layer comprising at least one of electroadsorption of the molecules and electrowetting of the surface with the aqueous medium” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding the limitation “to selectively modify the selective interaction of the surface with the aqueous medium comprising altering an orientation of the molecules of the aqueous medium at the surface”, the instant specification indicates that altering the gate potential applied to a gFET results in a change in the electroadsorption interaction with polar molecules at the graphene surface (p. 59) with a corresponding change in orientation (p. 58).
Therefore, as Chen teaches altering the gate potential applied to a gFET, it is considered that the interaction caused by the device of Chen necessarily comprises altering the orientation of the molecules of the aqueous medium at the graphene surface.
Chen therefore reads on the limitation “to selectively modify the selective interaction of the surface with the aqueous medium comprising altering an orientation of the molecules of the aqueous medium at the surface” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding the limitation “configured to control a voltage across the dielectric layer at an electric potential in a range of 0-20 or -20-0 volts, to thereby alter … the electroadsorption of the molecules”, the instant specification indicates that altering the gate voltage of a gFET results in altering the electroadsorption of molecules (e.g., p. 49-51).
Therefore, because the automated control of Chen is configured to control the magnitude of the electric field applied to the gFET, the automated control of Chen is considered to necessarily also be configured to alter the electroadsorption of the molecules.
Chen therefore reads on the limitation “configured to control a voltage across the dielectric layer at an electric potential in a range of 0-20 or -20-0 volts, to thereby alter … the electroadsorption of the molecules” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 18, Chen further teaches catalytic nanoparticles over the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“TiN nanoparticles anchored on the NG” para. 96, see also para. 104).
Regarding claim 20, for the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 20 has been interpreted as “a range of -20 to 20 volts”.
Chen teaches a system, comprising:
an electrically dopable nanomaterial (“nitrogen-doped graphene (NG)” para. 93) having an electrical doping selectively dependent on an electric field imposed on the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“electron and hole doping” para. 71 and Fig. 12a, and “gate voltage Vg” para. 66), and being configured to selectively interact with molecules in a surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping (see below);
a conductive substrate, configured to generate the electric field in the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“an Si wafer with a top layer of thermally-formed SiO2” para. 104);
a dielectric material formed between the conductive substrate and the electrically dopable nanomaterial, configured to electrically insulate the conductive surface from the electrically dopable nanomaterial, and to communicate the electric field from the conductive substrate to the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“a passivation layer includes SiO2” para. 51 and Fig. 1); and
an automated control (“a Keithley 2602 SourceMeter” para. 66), configured to control a magnitude of the electric field, by imposing a voltage potential over a range of 40 volts to -40 volts across the dielectric material, a range encompassing the claimed range (“gate voltage Vg from -40.0 to +40.0 V” Id.), to thereby alter the electrical doping of the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“electron and hole doping” para. 71 and Fig. 12a).
A range in the prior art encompassing a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding the limitation “being configured to selectively interact with molecules in a surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping”, the instant specification indicates that applying a gate voltage to a gFET i.e., a system with the structure recited by Chen, results in a selective interaction between molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium and the graphene dependent on the electrical doping induced by said gate voltage (e.g., p. 49-50).
Therefore, as Chen teaches applying a gate voltage to a gFET, the graphene in the system of Chen is necessarily configured to selectively interact with molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping.
Chen therefore reads on the limitation “configured to selectively interact with molecules in a surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping” (MPEP § 2112).
Claims 1, 3-7, 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0018626 A1) in view of Chen (US Pat. Pub. 2012/0214172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitations of claim 1 have been interpreted as “a range of 0-20 or -20-0 volts”.
Hoffman teaches a device (“GFET sensors” abstract) having a controlled interaction with respect to molecules in a surrounding aqueous medium (“to detect a presence and/or concentration changes of various analyte types in a wide variety of chemical and/or biological processes… based on monitoring changes in hydrogen ion concentration (pH)” abstract, and “aqueous solutions” para. 276), comprising:
a substrate having a conductive surface (“silicon based primary structure 10” Fig. 2 and para. 205);
a dielectric layer formed on the conductive surface (“an insulator material 20” Fig. 2 and para. 205);
an electrically dopable nanomaterial formed over the dielectric layer (“a single layer, 2D material, such as a graphene layer 30” Fig. 2 and para. 208), configured to become electrically doped due to a shift in the Fermi level in response to an electric field (“field effect transistor (FET)” para. 18), and having a selective electroadsorption interaction with the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping (see below); and
an automated control (comprising “circuitry component 140” and “computing component 150” Fig. 3), configured to control a voltage across the dielectric layer, to thereby alter the electrical doping of the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“circuitry component 140 … may include … a bias circuitry 142 … bias circuitry 142 may be coupled to one or more surfaces and/or chambers of the array 130 and may include a biasing component such as may be adapted to apply a read and/or bias voltage to selected chemically-sensitive field-effect transistors of the array 130, e.g., such as to a gate terminal of the transistor.” para. 225 and Fig. 3) and the electroadsorption of the molecules (see below).
Regarding the limitation “having a selective electroadsorption interaction with the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping”, the instant specification indicates that applying a gate voltage to a gFET i.e., a system with the structure recited by Hoffman, results in the selective electroadsorption of molecules in a surrounding aqueous medium to the graphene dependent on the electrical doping induced by the gate voltage (e.g., p. 49-50). Therefore, as Hoffman teaches applying a gate voltage to a gFET, the graphene in the system of Hoffman necessarily has a selective electroadsorption interaction with the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping.
Hoffman therefore reads on the limitation “having a selective electroadsorption interaction with the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding the limitation “configured to control a voltage across the dielectric layer …, to thereby alter … the electroadsorption of the molecules”, the instant specification indicates that altering the gate voltage of a gFET results in altering the electroadsorption of molecules (e.g., p. 49-51).
Therefore, because the automated control of Hoffman is configured to control the gate voltage applied to the gFET, the automated control of Hoffman is considered to necessarily also be configured to alter the electroadsorption of the molecules. Hoffman therefore reads on the limitation “configured to control a voltage across the dielectric layer, … to thereby alter … the electroadsorption of the molecules” (MPEP § 2112).
Hoffman does not teach the control is configured to control the voltage across the dielectric layer in a range of 0-20 or -20-0 volts.
However, Chen teaches a system comprising a gFET (title) configured to detect biomolecules (abstract), wherein a gate voltage i.e., the voltage across the dielectric layer, between 40 and -40 V (para. 66 and see e.g., Fig. 9a), a range encompassing both of the claimed ranges, is applied in order to detect said biomolecules (paras. 65-66, see also para. 71).
As Hoffman and Chen each teach gFETs, Hoffman and Chen are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Hoffman, such that the control system controls the voltage across the dielectric layer in a range between 40 and -40 V, a range encompassing the claimed ranges, as taught by Chen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Chen teaches a range between 40 and -40 V is suitable as the gate voltage in a gFET for detecting biomolecules. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). A range in the prior art encompassing a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3, Hoffman further teaches the surrounding molecules comprise polar molecules (“nucleic acids, such as DNAs and RNAs, have a negative charge” para. 276), the electrically dopable nanomaterial comprises a 2D material (“a single layer, 2D material, such as a graphene layer 30” Fig. 2 and para. 208), and the interaction comprises an absorption of the polar molecules to the 2D material in response to changes in the electric doping of the 2D material (see below).
Regarding the limitation “the interaction comprises an absorption of the polar molecules to the 2D material in response to changes in the electric doping of the 2D material”, the instant specification indicates that altering the gate potential applied to a gFET results in a change of the adsorption of polar molecules on the graphene (e.g., p. 49-51).
Therefore, as Hoffman teaches altering the gate potential applied to a gFET, the interaction of Hoffman necessarily comprises an absorption of the polar molecules to the 2D material in response to changes in the electric doping of the 2D material.
Hoffman thus reads on the limitation “the interaction comprises an absorption of the polar molecules to the 2D material in response to changes in the electric doping of the 2D material” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hoffman renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Hoffman further teaches the molecules are dissolved in the aqueous medium (“concentration changes” abstract), and the interaction comprises altering an orientation of the dissolved molecules (below).
Regarding the limitation “the interaction comprises altering an orientation of the dissolved molecules”, the specification indicates that altering the gate potential applied to a gFET results in a change in the electroadsorption interaction with polar molecules (p. 59) with a corresponding change in orientation (p. 58). Therefore, as Hoffman teaches altering the gate potential applied to a gFET, it is considered that the interaction of Hoffman necessarily comprises altering the orientation of the dissolved molecules.
Hoffman therefore reads on the limitation “the interaction comprises altering an orientation of the dissolved molecules” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hoffman renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above. Hoffman further teaches the electrically dopable nanomaterial is graphene (“a single layer, 2D material, such as a graphene layer 30” Fig. 2 and para. 208 and see para. 33).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hoffman renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above. Hoffman further teaches the electrically dopable material is molybdenum disulfide (“the 2D material may be … Molybdenum disulfide …” para. 33).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hoffman renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above. Hoffman further teaches the electrically dopable material comprises boron (“the 2D material may be … borophene … boron nitride …” para. 33).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hoffman renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above. Hoffman further teaches a porous membrane (“permeable membrane 40” Fig. 8) configured to transport the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium across the porous membrane in dependence on the electric field (see e.g., paras. 267 and 270-271).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hoffman renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above. Hoffman further teaches the electrically dopable nanomaterial comprises a boronitride (“the 2D material may be … boron nitride …” para. 33).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hoffman renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Hoffman further teaches the electrically dopable nanomaterial is configured to physiosorb or chemisorb the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium selectively in dependence on the electric field (see below).
Regarding the limitation “the electrically dopable nanomaterial is configured to physiosorb or chemisorb the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium selectively in dependence on the electric field”, the instant specification indicates that altering the gate potential applied to a gFET results in the selective physiosorption or chemisorption of molecules from a surrounding aqueous medium on the graphene (e.g., p. 50).
Therefore, as Hoffman teaches altering the gate potential applied to a gFET, the graphene of Hoffman is necessarily configured to physiosorb or chemisorb the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium selectively in dependence on the electric field.
Hoffman thus reads on the limitation “the electrically dopable nanomaterial is configured to physisorb or chemisorb the molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium selectively in dependence on the electric field” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hoffman renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above. Hoffman further teaches the electrically dopable nanomaterial comprises a semiconductor electrically dopable nanomaterial (“graphene layer 30” Fig. 2 and para. 208), the device comprising an electronic sensor (“bio-sensor 1” and “source 22 and drain 4” Fig. 2 and paras. 214-215) to sense an electrical conductivity through the semiconductor electrically dopable nanomaterial (see e.g., paras. 264-265 and Figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 16, for the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 16 has been interpreted as “a range of 0-20 or -20-0 volts”.
Hoffman teaches a device (“GFET sensors” abstract) having a controlled interaction with an aqueous medium (abstract and para. 276), comprising:
a dielectric layer (“an insulator material 20” Fig. 21 and para. 205);
an electrically dopable nanomaterial having a surface (“graphene layer 30” Fig. 2A and para. 208) exposed to the aqueous medium (“one or more solutions, such as containing one or more reactants may be added to the chamber thereby forming a solution gate.” para. 347) formed over the dielectric layer (“an insulator material 20” Fig. 2A and para. 205), the surface of the electrically dopable nanomaterial being configured to have a selective interaction with the aqueous medium dependent on an electrical doping due to an electric field through the dielectric layer comprising at least one of electroadsorption of the molecules and electrowetting of the surface with the aqueous medium (see below);
a conductive material under the dielectric layer (“silicon based primary structure 10” Fig. 2 and para. 205) configured to impose the electric field through the dielectric layer on the electrically dopable nanomaterial (see e.g., paras. 192, 210, 263 and Figs. 4-7), and to selectively modify the selective interaction of the surface with the aqueous medium comprising altering an orientation of the molecules of the aqueous medium at the surface (see below); and
an automated control (comprising “circuitry component 140” and “computing component 150” Fig. 3), configured to control a magnitude of a voltage across the dielectric layer, to thereby alter the electrical doping of the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“circuitry component 140 … may include … a bias circuitry 142 … bias circuitry 142 may be coupled to one or more surfaces and/or chambers of the array 130 and may include a biasing component such as may be adapted to apply a read and/or bias voltage to selected chemically-sensitive field-effect transistors of the array 130, e.g., such as to a gate terminal of the transistor.” para. 225 and Fig. 3) and the electroadsorption of the molecules (see below).
Regarding the limitation “the surface of the electrically dopable nanomaterial being configured to have a selective interaction with the aqueous medium dependent on an electrical doping due to an electric field through the dielectric layer comprising at least one of electroadsorption of the molecules and electrowetting of the surface with the aqueous medium”, the instant specification indicates that applying a gate voltage to a gFET i.e., a system with the structure recited by Hoffman, results in a selective interaction between the aqueous medium and the graphene surface dependent on said gate voltage (e.g., p. 49-50), the interaction comprising electroadsorption and/or electrowetting of the surface (Id.). Therefore, as Hoffman teaches applying a gate voltage to a gFET, the graphene surface in the system of Hoffman necessarily has a selective interaction with the aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping due to the electric field applied through the dielectric layer.
Hoffman therefore reads on the limitation “the surface of the electrically dopable nanomaterial being configured to have a selective interaction with the aqueous medium dependent on an electrical doping due to an electric field through the dielectric layer comprising at least one of electroadsorption of the molecules and electrowetting of the surface with the aqueous medium” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding the limitation “to selectively modify the selective interaction of the surface with the aqueous medium comprising altering an orientation of the molecules of the aqueous medium at the surface”, the specification indicates that altering the gate potential applied to a gFET results in a change in the electroadsorption interaction with polar molecules at the graphene surface (p. 59) with a corresponding change in orientation (p. 58). Therefore, as Hoffman teaches altering the gate potential applied to a gFET, it is considered that the interaction of Hoffman necessarily comprises altering the orientation of the molecules of the aqueous medium at the graphene surface.
Hoffman therefore reads on the limitation “to selectively modify the selective interaction of the surface with the aqueous medium comprising altering an orientation of the molecules of the aqueous medium at the surface” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding the limitation “configured to control a voltage across the dielectric layer …, to thereby alter … the electroadsorption of the molecules”, Hoffman teaches the automated control is configured to control the magnitude of the electric field by altering the gate voltage (para. 225 and see e.g., Fig. 6). The instant specification indicates that altering the gate voltage of a gFET results in altering the electroadsorption of molecules (e.g., p. 49-51). Therefore, because the automated control of Hoffman is configured to control the magnitude of the electric field applied to the gFET, wherein the gFET is configured to be exposed to an aqueous solution (e.g., a biological sample for PCR, see para. 276), the automated control of Hoffman is considered to necessarily also be configured to alter the electroadsorption of the molecules.
Hoffman therefore reads on the limitation “configured to control a voltage across the dielectric layer, … to thereby alter … the electroadsorption of the molecules” (MPEP § 2112).
Hoffman does not teach the control is configured to control the magnitude of the voltage across the dielectric layer in a range of 0-20 or -20-0 volts.
However, Chen teaches a system comprising a gFET (title) configured to detect biomolecules (abstract), wherein a gate voltage i.e., the voltage across the dielectric layer in a range between 40 and -40 V (para. 66 and see e.g., Fig. 9a), a range encompassing both of the claimed ranges, is applied in order to detect said biomolecules (paras. 65-66, see also para. 71).
As Hoffman and Chen each teach gFETs, Hoffman and Chen are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Hoffman, such that the control system controls the voltage across the dielectric layer in a range between 40 and -40 V, a range encompassing the claimed ranges, as taught by Chen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Chen teaches a range between 40 and -40 V is suitable as the gate voltage in a gFET for detecting biomolecules. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). A range in the prior art encompassing a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 19, Hoffman further teaches a porous membrane between the electrically dopable nanomaterial and the aqueous medium (“permeable membrane 40” Fig. 8a).
The limitation “a transport of the molecules across the porous membrane is dependent on the electric potential”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, the instant specification indicates a gFET comprising a porous membrane located between the graphene layer and an aqueous medium is capable of transporting molecules across the porous membrane dependent on the electric potential (e.g., p. 59).
Therefore, as Hoffman teaches a gFET, wherein a porous membrane is located between the graphene and an aqueous medium, the device of Hoffman is capable transporting molecules across the porous membrane dependent on the electric potential.
Hoffman thus reads on the limitation “a transport of the molecules across the porous membrane is dependent on the electric potential”.
Regarding claim 20, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitations of claim 20 have been interpreted as “between 20 and -20 volts”.
Hoffman teaches a system comprising:
an electrically dopable nanomaterial (“a single layer, 2D material, such as a graphene layer 30” Fig. 2 and para. 208) having an electrical doping selectively dependent on an electric field imposed on the electrically dopable nanomaterial (see e.g., paras. 192, 210, 263 and Figs. 4-7), and being configured to selectively interact with molecules in a surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping (see below);
a conductive substrate (“silicon based primary structure 10” Fig. 2 and para. 205), configured to generate the electric field in the electrically dopable nanomaterial (see e.g., paras. 192, 210, 263 and Figs. 4-7);
a dielectric material formed between the conductive substrate and the electrically dopable nanomaterial, configured to electrically insulate the conductive surface from the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“an insulator material 20” Fig. 21 and para. 205), and to communicate the electric field from the conductive substrate to the electrically dopable nanomaterial (see e.g., paras. 192, 210, 263 and Figs. 4-7); and
an automated control (comprising “circuitry component 140” and “computing component 150” Fig. 3), configured to control a magnitude of the electric field, by imposing a voltage potential to thereby alter the electrical doping of the electrically dopable nanomaterial (“circuitry component 140 … may include … a bias circuitry 142 … bias circuitry 142 may be coupled to one or more surfaces and/or chambers of the array 130 and may include a biasing component such as may be adapted to apply a read and/or bias voltage to selected chemically-sensitive field-effect transistors of the array 130, e.g., such as to a gate terminal of the transistor.” para. 225 and Fig. 3).
Regarding the limitation “being configured to selectively interact with a surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping, the selective interaction comprising electroadsorption of molecules in the surrounding aqueous medium” as currently drafted, this limitation is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, the specification indicates a gFET is capable of selectively interacting with a surrounding aqueous medium depending on the electrical doping (e.g. p. 49-51).
Therefore, as Hoffman teaches a gFET, the device of Hoffman is necessarily capable of selectively interacting with a surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping.
Hoffman therefore reads on the limitation “being configured to selectively interact with molecules in a surrounding aqueous medium dependent on the electrical doping”.
Hoffman does not teach the control is configured to control a magnitude of the electric field by imposing a voltage potential between 20 volts and – 20 volts across the dielectric material.
However, Chen teaches a system comprising a gFET (title) configured to detect biomolecules (abstract), wherein a gate voltage i.e., the voltage across the dielectric layer in a range between 40 and -40 V (para. 66 and see e.g., Fig. 9a), a range encompassing the claimed range, is applied in order to detect said biomolecules (paras. 65-66, see also para. 71).
As Hoffman and Chen each teach gFETs, Hoffman and Chen are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Hoffman, such that the control system controls the voltage across the dielectric layer in a range between 40 and -40 V, a range encompassing the claimed range, as taught by Chen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Chen teaches a range between 40 and -40 V is suitable as the gate voltage in a gFET for detecting biomolecules. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). A range in the prior art encompassing a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Claims 8-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Chen, as applied to claim 1 or 16 above, and further in view of Fudan (CN 111470496 A) and Oka (US Pat. Pub. 2018/0164244 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hoffman renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Hoffman does not teach a nanoporous material over the electrically dopable nanomaterial.
However, Fudan teaches a gFET (para. 28), wherein a nanoporous material (“metal organic framework” abstract and “pore size of about 1.92 nm” para. 65, see also para. 16) is located over the graphene layer (abstract and Fig. 19), thereby improving the differentiation of the gFET sensor with respect to different molecules in a surrounding medium (para. 75 and Fig. 13).
Furthermore, Oka teaches that field-effect transistors comprising metal organic frameworks (abstract) are suitable for detecting biomolecules in aqueous samples (paras. 19-20).
As Fudan teaches a gFET, Fudan is analogous art to the instant invention. As Oka teaches a FET configured for use with aqueous samples, Oka is analogous art.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Hoffman, by adding a nanoporous material comprising a metal organic framework over the electrically dopable nanomaterial, as taught by Fudan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the differentiation of the gFET sensor, as taught by Fudan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation for success making this modification because Oka teaches metal organic frameworks are suitable for use in FETs configured for detection of biological target molecules in aqueous media. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hoffman renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Hoffman does not teach a metal organic framework over the electrically dopable nanomaterial.
However, Fudan teaches a gFET (para. 28), wherein a metal organic framework (“metal organic framework” abstract) is located over the graphene layer (abstract and Fig. 19), thereby improving the differentiation of the gFET sensor with respect to different molecules in a surrounding medium (para. 75 and Fig. 13).
Furthermore, Oka teaches that field-effect transistors comprising metal organic frameworks (abstract) are suitable for detecting biomolecules in aqueous samples (paras. 19-20).
As Fudan teaches a gFET, Fudan is analogous art to the instant invention. As Oka teaches a FET configured for use with aqueous samples, Oka is analogous art.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Hoffman, by adding a metal organic framework over the electrically dopable nanomaterial, as taught by Fudan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the differentiation of the gFET sensor, as taught by Fudan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation for success making this modification because Oka teaches metal organic frameworks are suitable for use in FETs configured for detection of biological target molecules in aqueous media. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hoffman renders the limitations of claim 18 obvious, as described above.
Hoffman does not teach at least one of a nanoporous material, a metal organic framework, a zeolite, catalytic nanoparticles, a surfactant, and a liquid crystal over the electrically dopable nanomaterial.
However, Fudan teaches a gFET (para. 28), wherein a nanoporous material i.e., a metal organic framework (“metal organic framework” abstract and “pore size of about 1.92 nm” para. 65, see also para. 16), is located over the graphene layer (abstract and Fig. 19), thereby improving the differentiation of the gFET sensor with respect to different molecules in a surrounding medium (para. 75 and Fig. 13).
Furthermore, Oka teaches that field-effect transistors comprising metal organic frameworks (abstract) are suitable for detecting biomolecules in aqueous samples (paras. 19-20).
As Fudan teaches a gFET, Fudan is analogous art to the instant invention. As Oka teaches a FET configured for use with aqueous samples, Oka is analogous art.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Hoffman, by adding a nanoporous metal organic framework over the electrically dopable nanomaterial, as taught by Fudan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the differentiation of the gFET sensor, as taught by Fudan. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation for success making this modification because Oka teaches metal organic frameworks are suitable for use in FETs configured for detection of biological target molecules in aqueous media. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 6, filed 04/06/2026, regarding the objections to claims 1, 4, and 6-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1, 4, and 6-7 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 6-7, filed 04/06/2026, regarding the rejections of claims 4, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 4, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 7, filed 04/06/2026, regarding the rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 8, filed 04/06/2026, regarding the rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or 103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ren et al. (“Nanopore extended field-effect transistor for selective single-molecule biosensing” NATURE COMMUNICATIONS 2017 8 586) teaches application of a gate potential to a FET to selectively enable/disable the passage of target molecules through a porous layer (e.g., abstract). Sailor (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0166485) teaches selective electroadsorption of target molecules using the field effect (abstract). Blauw (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0263036 A1) teaches a FET wherein the gate potential is used to effect selective electroadsorption (e.g., para. 17).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM 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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights