DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 20, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claim 1 has been amended; claim 16 is new; claims 7-15 have been withdrawn previously, and claim 2 has been cancelled previously. claims 1, 3-6 and 16 are examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
New grounds of claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as outlined below.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 from the previous office action have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/11/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein the InN layer has an InN deposition amount with 0.5 monolayer to ensure a surface coverage”. It is unclear if the above limitation refers to a surface of the InGaN layer is covered by 0.5 monolayer of InN layer (note [para. 0045] in PGPub of this specification discloses “the thickness of the InN layer sheet can be between 0.1 and 2 monolayer molecules”) or only a fraction of the surface of the InGaN layer is covered by at least one monolayer of InN atoms while the rest of the whole surface is not covered by InN. If the surface of the InGaN layer is covered by 0.5 monolayer of InN layer, it is unclear how to achieve 0.5 monolayer of InN layer since it is less than one atom thickness. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 3-6 and 16 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, “the substance to be detected” lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 16 is indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 5-8, filed 8/20/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 103 rejections have been fully considered. The 112(b) rejections from the previous office action are essentially maintained, and the 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Regarding the 112b rejections, applicant argues a 0.5 monolayer or a sub-monolayer refers to a situation where the surface is only partially covered by atoms, molecules, or ions. In other words, the surface is not fully occupied by a complete layer of particles. The coverage is less than one full layer, meaning that some areas of the surface are still exposed and not covered by any particles. Imagine a grid representing the surface, and each grid point can accommodate one atom. In a monolayer, every grid point is occupied by an atom. In a sub-monolayer situation, only a fraction of these grid points is occupied. In addition, the term 0.5 monolayer or any other fraction to indicate the partial coverage of a surface with monolayer-high islands is very common and established in the epitaxy and crystallographic research community and literature. The term is commonly used without further explanation and clear to everybody. That is why, previously, we used the term without further explanation, which may not have been appropriate in a patent.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive since the definition of a 0.5 monolayer or a sub-monolayer, which refers to a situation where the surface is only partially covered by atoms, molecules, or ions, is not disclosed in the instant specification. The instant specification does not disclose how to specifically control the deposition of InN layer such that the surface of InGaN layer is only partially covered by InN atoms. [para. 0056] in PGPub of this instant specification discloses: “In step S406, an InN layer 13 is epitaxially grown on a surface of the InGaN layer 12 facing away from the substrate 11. … A growth interruption can be inserted to adjust the growth conditions for the InN layer when the InN layer 13 is to be grown under different conditions from those of the InGaN layer. InN is grown at a temperature between 200 and 500° C. The InN layer 12 is grown at a rate between 0.01 and 1 micrometer per hour. After this step, an electrochemical electrode epitaxial wafer of the reference electrode of the present disclosure is finalized”. [para. 0045] in PGPub of this specification discloses: “as shown in Table 3, the thickness of the InN layer sheet can be between 0.1 and 2 monolayer molecules, preferably 0.5 to 1.5 monolayer molecules, and the surface charge stability of the reference electrode is best within the above range”. Thus, it is unclear if the InN layer is a continuous sheet with a thickness being a fraction of a monolayer such as 0.5 monolayer or the surface is only partially covered by the InN atoms.
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Regarding the 103 rejection for claim 1, applicant argues at pages 7-8 that Rodriguez et al. solely studied deposition amounts above one monolayer for the formation of quantum dots for high-sensitive sensing electrons. There is no possibility to "having an InN deposition amount with 0.5 monolayer in order to obtain the desired dot density" as taught by Rodriguez: Dots do not form for 0.5 monolayer deposition amount.
Examiner’s Response #2:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, and all 103 rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument #3:
Regarding the 103 rejection for claim 4, applicant argues at page 8 that the In content of 0.4 alone, where there is a transition from electron accumulation to depletion is not sufficient for the reference electrode of our patent application. It is this 0.4 In content plus the sub-monolayer coverage (see above - not quantum dots as studied by Rodriguez) of the InGaN layer to create a charged balance surface.
Examiner’s Response #3:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, and all 103 rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument #4:
Regarding the new claim 16, applicant argues at page 8 that new claim 16 depends from claim 1 as described above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 16 is allowable at least for depending from an allowable independent claim.
Examiner’s Response #4:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, and claim 16 is rejected under 112b as outlined in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V. Van can be reached on (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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795