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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 9, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2 have been amended; and claims 3-11 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2 are currently pending and examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
New grounds of claim objection are necessitated by the amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) are necessitated by the amendment as outlined below.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objection
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: please amend “the same” to --the [[same]] mixed solution--; “PEDOT” to – [[P]]EDOT--.
Claim 2: please amend “PEDOT” to – [[P]]EDOT--; “the same” to --the [[same]] mixed solution--; “in the solution” in Ln 1 on page 3 to –in the mixed solution--; “electrodes having” in Ln 1 on page 3 to – the electrodes having--; “the solution” in Ln 4 on page 3 to -- the mixed solution--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 recite “applying a current of 4 μA to the working electrode to selectively deposit GO/EDOT:PSS thereon, wherein the mixed solution comprises 0.0005 mol to 0.00125 mol of EDOT relative to 1 g of GO, and the molar ratio of EDOT and PSS is 1:10, wherein the second step is performed for 270 to 300 seconds, and wherein a detection limit of the dopamine-sensitive sensor ranges from 0.008 μM to 0.1 μM”, which is not supported by the instant specification. The instant specification discloses “applying a current of 4 μA to the working electrode to selectively deposit GO/EDOT:PSS thereon” only in Example 1 [para. 0039] in PG-Pub: “To prepare a GO/PEDOT:PSS electrode, a graphene oxide solution (4 mg/mL) in water and a PEDOT:PSS solution (a mixture of 0.01 M EDOT and 0.1 M PSS) were mixed at a ratio of 5:1, and uniformly mixed with vortexing. The previously prepared sensor electrodes were sufficiently immersed in the mixture solution, and then a current of 4 μA was applied to the working electrode for 300 seconds”. In the above disclosure, it discloses the molar ratio of EDOT and PSS is 1:10, but does not disclose “wherein the mixed solution comprises 0.0005 mol to 0.00125 mol of EDOT relative to 1 g of GO, wherein the second step is performed for 270 to 300 seconds, and wherein a detection limit of the dopamine-sensitive sensor ranges from 0.008 μM to 0.1 μM”. Note that [para. 0013-0015] in PG-Pub discloses: “applying a current to the working electrode to selectively deposit GO/PEDOT:PSS thereon, wherein the solution comprises 0.0003 mol to 0.0015 mol of EDOT relative to 1 g of GO, and the molar ratio of EDOT and PSS is 1:7-13”; “since the GO/PEDOT:PSS layer can be selectively deposited through electro-polymerization by applying a low current of several μA to the working electrode “; “For example, the second step may be performed for 200 to 500 seconds. Specifically, the second step may be performed for 250 to 400 seconds or 270 to 300 seconds”. The above disclosure does not disclose wherein the current is 4 μA. Thus, in the specifical example 1 with the specific current of 4 μA, it does not support: “wherein the mixed solution comprises 0.0005 mol to 0.00125 mol of EDOT relative to 1 g of GO, wherein the second step is performed for 270 to 300 seconds, and wherein a detection limit of the dopamine-sensitive sensor ranges from 0.008 μM to 0.1 μM”, recited in amended claims 1 and 2. Therefore, claims 1-2 are new matters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 4-10, filed 5/9/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered, and all 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in response to the amendment to claims.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites 20 µm-thick polyimide (PI) film as the substrate and application of a 4 µA current for 270 to 300 seconds, and the prior art of the record does not teach the specific process parameters (4 µA current, 1:10 ratio, 270-300 s on 20 µm PI).
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection under 112(a) 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
Prosecution Insights