DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 and 21-23 are being examined in the application.
Status of the Rejections
2. Rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph is being withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Rejection of claims in view of Merriman et al. in view of Pisharody et al. is being modified to address new limitations.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman et al. (US 2017/0044605) in view of Pisharody et al. (WO 2005/108612).
Claim 1. Merriman et al. teach a tunable nano-structure for use in a molecular electronics sensor (electronic structure that comprising nanoelectrode that can be configured to certain length, width and thickness specification (reads on tunable structure) to detect molecules; see abstract and [0082]), the structure comprising:
a pair of nanoelectrodes disposed on a substrate and comprising a first metal, each pair of nanoelectrodes comprising a first nanoelectrode and a second nanoelectrode spaced-apart from the first nanoelectrode by a nanogap (first and second electrodes 202, 203 respectively constructed as nano-electrodes are made up of conductive metal and are spaced apart by nanogap; [0049][0074][0076] and Fig 2A);
a pair of nanopillars comprising a second metal, each pair of nanopillars comprising a first nanopillar and a second nanopillar spaced-apart from the first nanopillar by a nanopillar gap, the pair of nanopillars configured to receive a bridge molecule spanning the nanopillar gap (pair of contacts 206, 207 comprising metal different from electrode material are spaced apart by gap 239 and configured to receive a biopolymer bridge molecule; [0049][0055][0074][0076] and Fig 2A);
wherein a bottom surface of the first nanopillar is physically and electrically connected to the first nanoelectrode, and a bottom surface of the second nanopillar is physically and electrically connected to the second nanoelectrode (bottom surface of the contacts are physically and electrically connected to the respective first and second electrodes; see Fig 2A) and
wherein the first and second nanopillars each comprise posts and wherein the bottom surface and top surface of the nanopillar are shaped relative to each other to receive one and only one bridge molecule (pair of contacts 206, 206 are comprised of posts and bottom and top surface of the nanopillar are shaped to receive only one/a bridge molecule 333; see Fig 3A and [0051]).
Merriman et al. teach a surface passivation treatment is applied to exposed electrodes to reduce electrical noise that could occur from contact with liquid sample [0091]. Merriman et al. does not explicitly teach a dielectric layer covering the nanogap and the first and second nanopillars each comprise posts projecting substantially vertically through the dielectric layer such that only a top surface of each nanopillar is uncovered by the dielectric layer.
However, Pisharody et al. teach biosensor for detection of nucleic acid comprised of pair of electrodes spaced apart by a gap such that nucleic acid could span (abstract and [0052]) wherein the electrodes and the gap is insulated with insulator or dielectric with probes tips being exposed, the insulation of electrodes and gap reduces the ability probe and or analyte to bind with electrodes and gap and thereby increasing signal to noise ratio ([0052][0050] and Fig 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Pisharody et al. teaching to cover the nanogap, nanoelectrodes and nanopillars (expect tips of nanopillars) of Merrimam et al. with dielectric layer because it would prevent the analyte, nucleic acid from binding, to the electrodes or the gap or to the base of nanopillars and would thereby increase signal to noise ratio.
Claim 2. Modified Merrimam et al. in view of Pisharody et al. teach the top surface of each nanopillar is protruding beyond a top surface of the dielectric layer (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 3. Merriman et al. teach a bridge molecule having a first end and a second end, the first end of the bridge molecule bonded to the first nanopillar and the second end of the bridge molecule bonded to the second nanopillar, bridging the nanopillar gap (biomolecule bridging the pair of contacts; see Fig 3 and [0050]).
Claim 4. Merriman et al. teach the first metal comprises Al, Cu, Ru, Pt, Pd, or Au, and the second metal comprises Ru, Pt, Pd, or Au (the electrode and contact could comprise of aluminum or platinum, the contact could comprise same or different material; [0076]).
Claim 5. Merriman et al. teach the first metal comprises Al and the second metal comprises Ru (the electrode could be comprised of aluminum and contact could comprise different material; [0076] and one of ordinary skill in the art would choose ruthenium as choice of material for contact because it similar to palladium, platinum and like materials).
5. Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman et al. (US 2017/0044605) in view of Chen et al. (WO2017/132567) and Pisharody et al. (WO 2005/108612).
Claim 21. Merriman et al. teach a tunable nano-structure for use in a molecular electronics sensor (electronic structure that comprising nanoelectrode that can be configured to certain length, width and thickness specification (reads on tunable structure) to detect molecules; see abstract and [0082]), the structure comprising:
a pair of nanoelectrodes disposed on a substrate and comprising a first metal, each pair of nanoelectrodes comprising a first nanoelectrode and a second nanoelectrode spaced-apart from the first nanoelectrode by a nanogap (first and second electrodes 202, 203 respectively constructed as nano-electrodes are made up of conductive metal and are spaced apart by nanogap; [0049][0074][0076] and Fig 2A);
a pair of nanopillars comprising a second metal, each pair of nanopillars comprising a first nanopillar and a second nanopillar spaced-apart from the first nanopillar by a nanopillar gap, the pair of nanopillars configured to receive a bridge molecule spanning the nanopillar gap (pair of contacts 206, 207 comprising metal different from electrode material are spaced apart by gap 239 and configured to receive a biopolymer bridge molecule; [0049][0055][0074][0076] and Fig 2A);
wherein a bottom surface of the first nanopillar is physically and electrically connected to the first nanoelectrode, and a bottom surface of the second nanopillar is physically and electrically connected to the second nanoelectrode (bottom surface of the contacts are physically and electrically connected to the respective first and second electrodes; see Fig 2A) and
Merriman et al. teach a surface passivation treatment is applied to exposed electrodes to reduce electrical noise that could occur from contact with liquid sample [0091]. Merriman et al. does not explicitly teach a dielectric layer covering the nanogap and the first and second nanopillars and first nanopillar comprises a cylindrical shape in which a bottom portion of the cylinder defines bulbous base portion below the dielectric layer.
However, Chen et al. teach nanoelectrode system for analyzing biomolecules comprised of an electrode pair separated by a gap and conductive islands disposed on the tip of the electrode pairs, wherein the conductive island could take the shape of nanopillar or nano-tip (reads on vertical tapered nanopillar having larger diameter of bottom portion than top portion) ([0007]-[0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Chen et al. teaching to use nano-tip shaped conductive island as the contacts in Merriman et al. sensor because such shapes were alternate to linear shaped contacts and using such shapes i.e. nano-tip shaped would have yield predictable results with reasonable expectation.
Merriman et al. teach a surface passivation treatment is applied to exposed electrodes to reduce electrical noise that could occur from contact with liquid sample [0091]. Merriman et al. does not explicitly teach a dielectric layer covering the nanogap and the first and second nanopillars such that only a top surface of each nanopillar is uncovered by the dielectric layer.
However, Pisharody et al. teach biosensor for detection of nucleic acid comprised of pair of electrodes spaced apart by a gap such that nucleic acid could span (abstract and [0052]) wherein the electrodes and the gap is insulated with insulator or dielectric with probes tips being exposed, the insulation of electrodes and gap reduces the ability probe and or analyte to bind with electrodes and gap and thereby increasing signal to noise ratio ([0052][0050] and Fig 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Pisharody et al. teaching to cover the nanogap, nanoelectrodes and nanopillars (expect tips of nanopillars) of Merrimam et al. with dielectric layer because it would prevent the analyte, nucleic acid from binding, to the electrodes or the gap or to the base of nanopillars and would thereby increase signal to noise ratio.
Claim 22. Merriman et al. in view of Chen et al. teach the nanopillar are shaped to receive only one bridge molecule (see Chen et al. [0013]).
6. Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman et al. and Pisharody et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Willis et al. (US 2009/0085556).
Claims 6 and 7. modified Merriman et al. teach contact could have different size or pattern [0085] but do not teach the top surface of at least one nanopillar in the pair of nanopillars comprises a mushroom protrusion extending the nanopillar horizontally over a portion of a top surface of the resist or dielectric layer. However, Willis et al. teach fabricating nanoscale probes used to perform single molecule electrical measurements [0003][0004], the nanoscale probes are fabricated on a substrate layer and dielectric layer wherein the nanoscale probe has projection of mushroom or inverted L (reads on nanopillar with horizontal portion extending across portion of top surface of dielectric layer and towards other nanopillar of claim 7) ([0028][0050] and Fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Willis et al. teaching to use mushroom based or L shaped nanoscale probe as the contacts in Merriman et al. sensor because such shapes were alternate to linear shaped contacts and using such shapes i.e. mushroom or L would have yield predictable results with reasonable expectation.
7. Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman et al. and Pisharody et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (WO2017/132567).
Claims 8 and 9. Modified Merriman et al. teach contact could have different size or pattern [0085] but do not teach least one nanopillar in the pair of nanopillars comprises a vertically tapered nanopillar, and wherein a bottom portion of the vertically tapered nanopillar is larger in diameter than a top portion of the vertically tapered nanopillar or both nanopillars in the pair of nanopillars comprise vertically tapered nanopillars. However, Chen et al. teach nanoelectrode system for analyzing biomolecules comprised of an electrode pair separated by a gap and conductive islands disposed on the tip of the electrode pairs, wherein the conductive island could take the shape of nanopillar or nano-tip (reads on vertical tapered nanopillar having larger diameter of bottom portion than top portion) ([0007]-[0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Chen et al. teaching to use nano-tip shaped conductive island as the contacts in Merriman et al. sensor because such shapes were alternate to linear shaped contacts and using such shapes i.e. nano-tip shaped would have yield predictable results with reasonable expectation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 of remarks that Fig 15 of Pisharody shows electrodes 1 and 2, while electrode 2 is covered by the surface chemistry on substrate, electrode 1 is not and the office action does not explain whether “surface chemistry on substrate” is dielectric material.
In response, in making the rejection, examiner cited paragraphs [0052][0050] of Phisharody et al. to teach the substrate is treated with passivation agent such as silicon dioxide or silane compounds (inherently dielectric/insulating) to reduce ability to bind with the probe and or analyte, thus it is apparent, surface chemistry on substrate as shown is Fig 15 is the passivating agent. Example 3 further teaches PEG-silane modification of biosensor chip wherein biochip is immersed in PEG-silane solution (reads on surface chemistry on substrate to passivate the chip) followed by attaching DNA probes [00107].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7895. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/GURPREET KAUR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759