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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention of Group I, Claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 07/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/31/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moseley et al. (PN 7,628,957) in view of Reference N (JP2013-506503) and further in view of Morii et al. (WO 2019/059178A1).
Moseley et al. discloses, as shown in Figure 1, a carbon dioxide sensor comprising:
first and second sensing electrodes (2, 3) formed from electrically conductive material (gold, Col. 4, lines 14-15), the sensing electrodes spaced apart from one another and positioned on a substrate; and
an active sensing layer (4) being positioned on the substrate (not shown, Col. 4, lines 13-17) in direct physical contact with at least a portion of the first and second sensing electrodes and being positioned to detect a change in an electrical characteristic in response to a change in carbon dioxide concentration in proximity to the active sensing layer.
Moseley et al. does not disclose the active sensing layer formed from polyethyleneimine-functionalized carbon nanomaterials comprising branched polyethyleneimine polymers. However, Reference N disclose forming the active layer from polyethyleneimine-functionalized carbon nanomaterials comprising branched polyethyleneimine polymers. Note page 18, last paragraph of Reference N. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the active sensing layer of Moseley et having polyethyleneimine-functionalized carbon nanomaterials comprising branched polyethyleneimine polymers, such as taught by Reference N in order to have free primary amino groups, which allow chemical entities to be bound by ionic or covalent bonds.
Moseley et al. and Reference N do not disclose polyethyleneimine-functionalized carbon nanomaterials comprising branched polyethyleneimine polymers having a weight average molecular weight of less than about 25,000. However, Morii et al. discloses polyethyleneimine-functionalized carbon nanomaterials comprising branched polyethyleneimine polymers having a weight average molecular weight of less than about 25,000. Note page 8, first paragraph of Morii et al. Therefore, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form polyethyleneimine-functionalized carbon nanomaterials comprising branched polyethyleneimine polymers of Moseley et al. and Reference N having a weight average molecular weight of less than about 25,000, such as taught by Morii et al. in order to further improve the drive stability of the device.
Further, the selection of these parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, speed, molar fraction, molecular weight, depth, thickness, etc., would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, molecular weight, depth, thickness, etc., or in combination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Alter 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Regarding claim 2, Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. disclose the branched polyethyleneimine polymers have a weight average molecular weight of less than about 1,000. Note page 8, first paragraph of Morii et al.
Regarding claim 3, Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. disclose the active sensing layer is formed by dispensing a composition onto the substrate, the composition comprising the polyethyleneimine-functionalized carbon nanomaterials dispersed in a liquid medium. Note page 17, third paragraph of Morii et al.
Regarding claim 4, Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. disclose the liquid medium comprises a solvent selected from the group consisting of water, alcohols, diols, polar water-miscible solvents, and combinations thereof. Note page 9, third paragraph of Morii et al.
Regarding claim 6, Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. disclose the sensor further comprising a heating layer (15) formed on an opposite side of the substrate from the active sensing layer for maintaining or changing the temperature of the active sensing layer during operation of the carbon dioxide sensor (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. disclose except material of the substrate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the substrate of Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. having the materials as that claimed by Applicant, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moseley et al. (PN 7,628,957) in view of Reference N (JP2013-506503), Morii et al. (WO 2019/059178A1) and further in view of Li et al. (US 2014/0326600).
Regarding claim 5, Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. does not disclose the polyethyleneimine-functionalized carbon nanomaterials comprise polyethyleneimine polymers chemically bonded to oxidized carbon nanotubes. However, Li et al. disclose a polymer bonded to oxidized carbon nanotubes. Note (--OH or –COOH, etc.), [0059] of Li et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the sensor of Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. such as taught by Li et al. in order to have a stable material.
Regarding claim 7, Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. does not disclose the device further comprising first and second heating electrodes formed from electrically conductive material, each of the heating electrodes being in direct physical contact with the heating layer for providing a series of electrical pulses to the heating layer during operation of the sensor. However, Li et al. discloses a sensing device comprising first and second electrodes (206) formed from electrically conductive material, each of the electrodes being in direct physical contact with the heating layer (202) for providing a series of electrical pulses to the heating layer during operation of the sensor. Note Figure 19 of Li et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the sensor of Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. having first and second electrodes formed from electrically conductive material, each of the electrodes being in direct physical contact with the heating layer, such as taught by Li et al. in order to provide the voltage power to the sensor.
Regarding claim 9, Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. disclose a sensor array comprising the carbon dioxide sensor according to claim 1, wherein the first and second sensing electrodes are positioned to detect a change in a first portion of the active sensing layer. Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. do not disclose the sensor array further comprising a third sensing electrode positioned to detect a change in an electrical characteristic in response to a change in an analyte concentration in proximity to at least one of: (a) a second portion of the active sensing layer different from said first portion of the active sensing layer, and (b) a second active sensing layer. However, Li et al. discloses the sensor array further comprising a third sensing electrode (212 or additional 210 therebetween, [0175] the device 210 can include any number of sensing electrodes 210) positioned to detect a change in an electrical characteristic in response to a change in an analyte concentration in proximity to at least one of: (a) a second portion of the active sensing layer different from said first portion of the active sensing layer, and (b) a second active sensing layer. Note Figure 19 of Li et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the sensor of Moseley et al., Reference N and Morii et al. having a third sensing electrode, such as taught by Li et al. in order to perform the desired function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG K VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7am - 5pm.
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, JACOB CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/HUNG K VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897