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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 14-15, and 24 are pending.
Claims 1, 12 have been amended.
Claims 5, 11, 13, and 23 are canceled.
Claims 16-23 are withdrawn.
Claim 24 is new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et. al. (US 7816681 B2) and further in view of Nayak et. al. (WO 2018015884 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Moon teaches “A gas sensing platform for sensing a gas component with a concentration, the gas sensing platform comprising:” (Abstract, The capacitive gas sensor includes an insulating substrate, a metal electrode and a micro thin-film heater wire integrally formed on the same plane of the insulating substrate, and an oxide detection layer coated on the metal electrode and the micro thin-film heater wire.); “a chemoresistive gas sensor” (Title and Para [17], Capacitive Gas Sensor And Method Of Fabricating The Same. Development of resistance type environmental gas sensors using electrical resistivity characteristics varied by adsorption of gases and oxidation/reduction reactions occurring on a surface of the metal oxide when they are in contact with an environmental gas.); “arranged in a single continuous line, the chemoresistive gas sensor including: a sensing region and two interconnect regions each extending continuously from the sensing region,” (Fig. 1 and Para [14], Electrodes 102 and an oxide layer 101 are deposited on the structure.) Therefore the electrodes 103 are the two interconnect regions and they extend from the oxide layer 101 which is the sensing region of the sensor and it is shown as a single continuous line.
Moon does not teach “the sensing region comprised of porous graphene;”.
Nayak teaches a device including an on-chip electrode platform including one or more three dimensional laser scribed graphene electrodes. In addition to “the sensing region comprised of porous graphene;” (Page 7, an on-chip electrode platform including one or more three dimensional laser scribed graphene electrodes, Fabrication of an on-chip electrode platform fabricated by direct growth of a porous binder free three dimensional graphene architectures on substrates (e.g., polyimide) employing laser scribing of the surface of the substrate.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moon to incorporate the teachings of Nayak wherein the sensing region is comprised of porous graphene. Doing so provides a platform with an increase in surface for exposure, allowing for an increase in detection sensitivity.
Further taught by Moon is “and a gas-sensitive nanomaterial dispersed in the sensing region” (Para [17], Metal oxide semiconductor ceramic, a thin film, and a nano structure.). The recitation “operable to deconvolute the gas component from a gas mixture” is intended use of the nanomaterial within the sensing region. Therefore, the prior art teaches to all of the positively claimed limitations and can function as intended to. Further taught “and a substrate supporting the chemoresistive gas sensor;” (Para [24], One aspect of the present invention provides a capacitive gas sensor, comprising: an insulating substrate); “wherein the chemoresistive gas sensor has a response to the gas component by changing a sensing resistance R of the gas sensing region as the gas-sensitive nanomaterial binds with the gas component such that the gas component can be detected.” (Para (17), Metal oxide semiconductor ceramic, a thin film, and a nano structure such as zinc oxide (ZnO), tin oxide (SnO.sub.2), tungsten oxide (WO.sub.3), titanium oxide (TiO.sub.2), or indium oxide (In.sub.2O.sub.3) are known as favorable materials for development of resistance type environmental gas sensors using electrical resistivity characteristics varied by adsorption of gases and oxidation/reduction reactions occurring on a surface of the metal oxide when they are in contact with an environmental gas.).
Regarding claim 2, modified Moon teaches all of claim 1 as above however Moon does not teach “wherein the interconnect regions are comprised of porous graphene.”.
Nayak teaches “wherein the interconnect regions are comprised of porous graphene.” (Page 7, an on-chip electrode platform including one or more three dimensional laser scribed graphene electrodes, Fabrication of an on-chip electrode platform fabricated by direct growth of a porous binder free three dimensional graphene architectures on substrates (e.g., polyimide) employing laser scribing of the surface of the substrate.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moon to incorporate the teachings of Nayak wherein the interconnect regions are comprised of porous graphene. Doing so provides a platform with larger surface area which increase the gas absorption of the device.
Regarding claim 7, modified Moon teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “wherein the substrate is rigid, flexible or stretchable.” (Para [24], One aspect of the present invention provides a capacitive gas sensor, comprising: an insulating substrate). Therefore, having a substrate present teaches to the substrate being rigid or flexible, as these are the only choices. Therefore the substrate being rigid or flexible is necessarily present due to the substrate being present.
Regarding claim 8, modified Moon teaches all of claim 1 as above. The recitation “wherein the response is characterized by a ratio (Ro-R)/Ro, wherein Ro is a resistance of the gas sensing region in the presence of only air, wherein the ratio (Ro-R)/Ro is at least 1/10000.” is capability of the response. Modified Moon discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the response as claimed, such response are said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that any measurement would need be relative to some standard and that measurement systems have detection limits.
Regarding claim 10, modified Moon teaches all of claim 1 as above but Moon does not teach “wherein: the porous graphene is laser-induced graphene; and/or the sensing region generally forms a straight line.”
Nayak teaches “wherein: the porous graphene is laser-induced graphene; and/or the sensing region generally forms a straight line.” (Page 7, an on-chip electrode platform including one or more three dimensional laser scribed graphene electrodes, fabrication of an on-chip electrode platform fabricated by direct growth of a porous binder free three dimensional graphene architectures on substrates (e.g., polyimide) employing laser scribing of the surface of the substrate. Also including large scale flexible electrochemical sensors that can be fabricated by adopting direct growth of graphitic carbon patterns on a substrate, such as a commercial polyimide surface, by use of a laser scribing approach, where the material modification can be referred to as laser scribed graphene (LSG) (porous graphene).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moon to incorporate the teachings of Nayak wherein: the porous graphene is laser-induced graphene; and/or the sensing region generally forms a straight line. Doing so increases the surface area which can be exposed to the gas which would result in a greater amount of the gas to be detected by the sensor.
Regarding claim 14, modified Moon teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not explicitly teach “the nanomaterial in the sensing region is recoverable.”.
Moon teaches to the nanomaterial in the sensing region (Para [17], Metal oxide semiconductor ceramic, a thin film, and a nano structure. But does not explicitly teach the nanomaterial is recoverable. However, it would have been clearly within the ordinary skills of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Moon. Moon does not teach that the nanomaterial is used up in the sensing process. As such, it appears that such nanoparticles would be “recoverable” through known regeneration processes, such as heat regeneration and scrubbing.
Regarding claim 24, modified Moon teaches all of claim 1 as above. The recitation “wherein the sensing region has a smaller linewidth than a linewidth of the interconnect regions” is capability of the sensor. The linewidth of the components within a gas sensor is dependent on the gas within the sensor in addition to the light source. Therefore the modified Moon discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the sensor which has the sensing region and the interconnect regions as claimed, such sensor is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et. al. (US 7816681 B2) and in view of Nayak et. al. (WO 2018015884 A1) as applied to claim 1 as above and in further view of Luebke et. al. (US 10001448 B2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Moon teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not teach “wherein the interconnect regions and the sensing region are integral.”.
Luebke teaches “wherein the interconnect regions and the sensing region are integral.”. Para [5], and Fig. 2, A gas sensor can include a first gas sensing region (sensing region) including a first pair of electrodes (two interconnect regions), Fig. 2 shows the gas sensitive layer 30 which is part of the sensing region and the pair of electrodes 20 are integral.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Moon to incorporate the teachings of Luebke wherein the interconnect regions and the sensing region are integral. Doing so reduces the number of components needed for the connection which increases the signal and accuracy of the sensor.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et. al. (US 7816681 B2) and in view of Nayak et. al. (WO 2018015884 A1) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Ruhl et. al. (US 20140260545 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Moon teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not teach “wherein: the interconnect regions further comprise a layer of conductive material coating the porous graphene for modulating an interconnect resistance of the interconnect region; and the conductive material is metal.”.
Ruhl teaches a sensor is provided, which may include: a sensor layer containing a sensor material, wherein an electrical resistance of the sensor material changes upon adsorption of an adsorbate at the sensor material, In addition to “wherein: the interconnect regions further comprise a layer of conductive material coating the porous graphene for modulating an interconnect resistance of the interconnect region; and the conductive material is metal.” (Para [0110], The at least one electrode 408 may include or may consist of at least one electrically conductive material, for example a metal or metal alloy such as copper, aluminum, gold, platinum, an alloy containing at least one of the aforementioned metals, an electrically conductive compound, e.g. a metal nitride such as titanium nitride or tantalum nitride, or electrically conductive carbon.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Moon to incorporate the teachings of Ruhl wherein the interconnect regions further comprise a layer of conductive material coating the porous graphene for modulating an interconnect resistance of the interconnect region; and the conductive material is metal. Doing so allows the conductive material to cover the interconnecting regions which improves the specificity of the pathway taken by charge equalization.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et. al. (US 7816681 B2) and in view of Nayak et. al. (WO 2018015884 A1) as applied to claim 1 and Chopra et. al. (KR 20170081299 A), machine translation.
Regarding claim 6, modified Moon teaches all of claim 1 as above however does not teach “wherein the gas-sensitive nanomaterial is rGO, MoS2, rGO/MoS2, or ZnO/CuO core/shell nanomaterials selected for binding to different gas components respectively.”.
Chopra teaches incorporation of carbon species within the core / graphene based shell structure may be included in the article of manufacture or may be incorporated into the article of manufacture or may be incorporated into a sensor, biosensor, electrode. In addition to, “wherein the gas-sensitive nanomaterial is rGO, MoS2, rGO/MoS2, or ZnO/CuO core/shell nanomaterials selected for binding to different gas components respectively.” (Pages 2, 3, and 11, The graphene-based structure 104 can be any type of graphene that is manufactured or commercially available according to conventional processes (e.g., the exfoliated or modified Hummer's method as described in the Examples) . Non-limiting examples of such compounds include graphene, graphene layer, bilayer graphene, triple layer graphene, multilayer graphene, water graphene, graphene quantum dot, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide (rGO), graphite oxide, ≪ / RTI > or other derivatives of graphene as defined herein. The graphene-based structure may have a film or flake or a flattened shape. Graphene based structures can be deposited on glass or silicon substrates using conventional techniques (e.g., spin-casting) and then dried. In one embodiment, the graphene-based structure is deposited on ice using a spin-casting technique. This type of process can enable the adsorption or impregnation of metal nanoparticles, but at the same time, the catalysts that lack the quality and properties of graphene-based materials (e.g., graphene or GO / reduced graphene oxide (rGO) It is necessary to limit the carbonized shell to the support. Hong et al., Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2010, 1, 3442-3445, discloses the synthesis of a hollow-shell structure from positively charged or negatively charged functionalized reduced graphene oxide have. Since then, numerous reports have been published on multicomponent encapsulated nanocatalysts (core / shell, yoke / shell, nano-rattle, etc.). Therefore, the graphene-based structure (rGO) that is on the substrate teaches to the gas-sensitive nanomaterial being (rGO). The catalyst that lack the (rGO) have to be limited to the carbonized shell to the support teaches to the (rGO) being part of the shell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Moon to incorporate the teachings of Chopra wherein the gas-sensitive nanomaterial is rGO. Doing increases makes the sensor highly sensitive to surface adsorbates.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et. al. (US 7816681 B2) and in view of Nayak et. al. (WO 2018015884 A1) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Luebke et. al. (US 10001448 B2) and Haick et. al. (WO 2017216794).
Regarding claim 12, modified Moon teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not teach “wherein: the interconnect regions are wavy or serpentine or any other nonlinear shape and the substrate is stretchable”.
Luebke teaches “the interconnect regions are wavy or serpentine or any other nonlinear shape” (Figure 8, electrodes 20 in a nonlinear shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Moon to incorporate the teachings of Luebke wherein the interconnect regions are wavy or serpentine or any other nonlinear shape. Doing increases sensitivity as the surface area within the interconnect regions increases.
Haick teaches “and the substrate is stretchable;” (Page 22, suitable substrates within the scope of the present invention include substances which may be rigid or flexible. Within the scope of the preset invention are flexible substrates which may also be stretchable.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Moon to incorporate the teachings of Haick wherein the substrate is rigid, flexible or stretchable. Doing increases the variability of the sensor and it can be applied to a rounded object or person.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et. al. (US 7816681 B2) and further in view of Nayak et. al. (WO 2018015884 A1) as applied to claim 1 as above and in further view of Foster (US 4584867 A).
Regarding claim 15 modified Moon teaches all of claim 1 as above including “the gas sensing platforms according to claim 1”. However, modified Moon does not teach “A gas sensing platform array, comprising an array of the gas sensing platforms” and “wherein each of the gas sensing platforms in the array is tailored to sense a different gas component.”
Nayak teaches “A gas sensing platform array, comprising an array of the gas sensing platforms” (Figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Moon to incorporate the teachings of Nayak A gas sensing platform array, comprising an array of the gas sensing platforms. Doing increases the variability of the platform to detect more than one gas at a time.
Foster teaches The device comprises a gas sensor containing a predetermined number of sensor elements which change their electric conductivity under the action of gases. In addition to, “wherein each of the gas sensing platforms in the array is tailored to sense a different gas component” (Abstract, thermally insulating substrate and the individual sensor elements are sensitized for the determination of different components of the gas mixture by selecting different materials and/or operating temperatures for the individual sensor elements.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Moon to incorporate the teachings of Foster wherein each of the gas sensing platforms in the array is tailored to sense a different gas component. Doing increases the variability in the different types of gases being detected by the sensor at the same time. This is helpful in determining if air quality is safe and when multiple gasses are suspected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 9 recites the interconnect resistance is smaller than the sensing resistance of the sensing region. It was found in prior art that resistance size can be dependent on the length, width or size of the region. However it was not found where the interconnect resistance is smaller than the sensing resistance of the sensing region. Therefore the claim would be allowable if rewritten as noted above.
Response to Amendments
Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 12, and 16 to include subject matter regarding requiring: “gas sensor arranged in a single continuous line”, has changed the scope of claims, and as a result, the 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 14-15 as stated in the non-final office action mailed 8-1-2025 is withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 103 as obvious for claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 14-15 and new claim 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant requests a rejoinder for the claims since claim 21 has incorporated the subject matter of claim 1. Examiner maintains the restriction and the rejection has been made final based on new claim amendments.
Applicant states the claims are in condition for allowance. The Examiner has withdrawn the previous rejection but made a new rejection based on the new claim amendments. The claims are not deemed in condition for allowance.
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 VELVET E HERON whose telephone number is 571-272-1557. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am – 4:30 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (571) 270-3638. 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.
/V.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798