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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/25/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-15, and 24 are pending.
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 13, and 23 are canceled.
Claims 16-22 are withdrawn.
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, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usagawa (US 20130186178 A1) in view of Nayak et. al. (WO 2018015884 A1)
Regarding claim 1 Usagawa teaches “A gas sensing platform for sensing a gas component with a concentration, the gas sensing platform comprising:” (Abstract, The gas sensor has a substrate);
“a chemoresistive gas sensor” (Para [0026], gas sensor capable of achieving reading for the change of electric resistance); “arranged in a single continuous line,” (Fig. 7, number 26, 20, 26a in a continuous line); “the chemoresistive gas sensor including:
a sensing region and two interconnect regions each extending continuously from the sensing region,” (Fig. 7 and Para [0099] and [0100], local isolation regions 26, 26a, gate electrode 20 comprises a stacked film of a titanium film formed over the gate insulating film 25 and a platinum film formed over the titanium film in this stage.)
Usagawa does not teach “the sensing region and two interconnect regions being… comprised of porous graphene”.
However, 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 and two interconnect regions being… 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 Usagawa to incorporate the teachings of Nayak wherein the sensing region and the interconnect regions are comprised of porous graphene. Doing so provides a platform with an increase in surface for exposure, allowing for an increase in detection sensitivity and increase the gas absorption of the device.
Usagawa further discloses “the sensing region and two interconnect regions being a monolithic single line”. (Fig. 7, number 26, 20, 26a in a continuous);“and a gas-sensitive nanomaterial dispersed in the sensing region” (Para [0046] and [0079], gas sensor having a nano-scaled structure comprising platinum grains and an SnO.sub.x nanostructure and having a resistance-dominant structure as a gate electrode of the present invention. Gate electrode of an Si-MOS (metal-Oxide-Semiconductor) 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 all of the positively claimed limitations and can function as intended to.
Further Usagawa “and a substrate supporting the chemoresistive gas sensor;” (Fig. 7 and Para [0099], semiconductor substrate 28); “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 [0026], Further, other purpose (third purpose) of the present invention is to provide a hyper thin film gas sensor capable of achieving reading for the change of electric resistance of the nano-scaled composite thin film by deposition of an adsorbed gas molecule to a nano metal compound as current change, voltage change or resistance change).
Regarding claim 7, modified Usagawa teaches all of claim 1 as stated above in addition to “wherein the substrate is rigid, flexible or stretchable.” (Abstract, The gas sensor has a 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, Usagawa Moon teaches all of claim 1 as stated 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 Usagawa discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the response as claimed, such response are said to be fully capable of the recited adaptation 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 Usagawa teaches all of claim 1 as stated above but Usagawa does not teach “wherein: the porous graphene is laser-induced graphene; and/or the sensing region generally forms a straight line.”
However, 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 Usagawa teaches all of claim 1 as stated above but does not explicitly teach “the nanomaterial in the sensing region is recoverable.”.
Usagawa teaches to the nanomaterial in the sensing region (Para [0046] and [0079], gas sensor having a nano-scaled structure comprising platinum grains and an SnO.sub.x nanostructure and having a resistance-dominant structure as a gate electrode of the present invention. Gate electrode of an Si-MOS (metal-Oxide-Semiconductor) 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 Usagawa.
Usagawa 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 15 modified Usagawa teaches all of claim 1 as stated above including “A gas sensing platform array, comprising an array of the gas sensing platforms wherein each of the gas sensing platforms in the array is tailored to sense a different gas component.” (Para [0083], a group of various kinds of gas sensors can be constructed over an Si substrate (silicon platform).
Regarding claim 24, modified Usagawa teaches all of claim 1 as stated 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 Usagawa 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usagawa (US 20130186178 A1) 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 Usagawa 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 regions; and the conductive material is metal.”.
However, 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 Usagawa 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 Usagawa (US 20130186178 A1) in view of Nayak et. al. (WO 2018015884 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chopra et. al. (KR 20170081299 A), machine translation.
Regarding claim 6, modified Usagawa 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 Usagawa 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usagawa (US 20130186178 A1) 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 Usagawa 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 Usagawa 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 Usagawa to incorporate the teachings of Haick wherein the substrate is rigid, flexible or stretchable. Doing so increases the variability of the sensor and it can be applied to a rounded object or person.
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.
The cited prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the context of claims 1 and 9, wherein the interconnect regions have an interconnect resistance smaller than the sensing resistance of the sensing region, wherein the gas sensing region generates localized heating upon an externally applied voltage due to a difference between the sensing resistance of the gas sensing region and the interconnect resistance of the interconnect regions.
The prior art discloses that resistance size is dependent on the length, width or size of the region. However, the prior art does not explicitly teach the claimed features as recited in dependent claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant arguments and remarks, filed March 25, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments to claim 1 filed March 25, 2026.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights