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 the Claims
The Amendment filed November 18th, 2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 21-30 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-20 and 31-32 are currently examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 § U.S.C 103 from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments
New grounds of rejection under 35 § U.S.C 103 are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, and 14-17, 19-20, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Pradeep (US 2020/0393400 A1) in view of Scremin (Amperometric determination of ascorbic acid with a glassy carbon electrode modified with TiO2-gold nanoparticles integrated into carbon nanotubes. Microchimica Acta 2018: 185, 1-10) and Chinh (Synthesis of Gold Nanoparticles Decorated with Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes (Au-MWCNTs) via Cysteaminium Chloride Functionalization. Nature Scientific Reports 2019: 9, 1-9). Sophocleous (A review of screen-printed silver/silver chloride (Ag/AgCl) reference electrodes potentially suitable for environmental potentiometric sensors, 2017), is used as an evidence reference for claim 20.
Regarding Claim 1, Pradeep teaches a working electrode (working electrode [para. 0011, 0078]; illustrated in Fig. 30) comprising:
carbon nanotubes (single walled carbon nanotubes [para. 0063]); and
metal nanoparticles on said carbon nanotubes (gold nanostars deposited on the carbon nanotubes [para. 0011, 0078]).
Pradeep is silent on the carbon nanotubes are “functionalized with a metal oxide”, wherein said metal nanoparticles are chemically reacted onto a surface of at least a portion of said carbon nanotubes.
Scremin teaches a glassy carbon electrode modified with TiO2-gold nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes (abstract), and teaches carbon nanotubes functionalized with a metal oxide (in the working electrode, TiO2 is used as the metal oxide [entire Section of Synthesis of TiO2-Au NPs, page 3]).
Pradeep and Scremin are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrochemical sensors using carbon nanotubes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon nanotubes of Pradeep by functionalizing with a metal oxide, as taught by Scremin, as a metal oxide like TiO2 would be suitable for amperometric detection of molecules, such as ascorbic acid (Scremin, [abstract]).
Modified Pradeep is silent on wherein said metal nanoparticles are chemically reacted onto a surface of at least a portion of said carbon nanotubes.
Chinh teaches gold nanoparticles decorated CNTs as promising materials for biosensors (abstract), and teaches wherein said metal nanoparticles are chemically reacted onto a surface of at least a portion of said carbon nanotubes (carbon nanotube surface functionalized with gold nanoparticles via chemical covalent bonds, full synthesis method described in Synthesis methods, page 2 as well as Figure 1, page 2).
Modified Pradeep and Chinh are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of functionalized carbon nanotubes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon nanotubes of modified Pradeep by functionalizing with metal nanoparticles chemically reacted onto a surface of at least a portion of said carbon nanotubes, as taught by Chinh, as carbon nanotubes with chemically reacted gold nanoparticles can be used for a variety of applications, such as biosensors and arsenic toxicant sensors (Chinh, [first para., page 1], and many applications of carbon nanotubes with gold nanoparticles require covalent bonds to meet specific purposes (Chinh, [second para., page 2]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 1, and teaches wherein said metal oxide is chosen from TiOx (as outlined in claim 1 rejection, Scremin teaches the metal oxide can be TiO2 [entire Section of Synthesis of TiO2-Au NPs, page 3]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 1.
Pradeep teaches wherein said metal nanoparticles are chosen from Au (gold nanostars [para. 0011, 0078]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 1, and teaches wherein metal oxide comprises TiOx (as outlined in claim 1 rejection, Scremin teaches the metal oxide can be TiO2 [entire Section of Synthesis of TiO2-Au NPs, page 3]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 1.
Pradeep teaches wherein said metal nanoparticles comprise Au (gold nanostars [para. 0011, 0078]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 1.
Pradeep teaches further comprising a substrate presenting a build surface (a carbon paste substrate [para. 0007, 0078]; illustrated in Fig. 30), said working electrode being supported on said build surface (working electrode formed on carbon paste substrate [para. 0054]; illustrated in Fig. 30).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 6.
Pradeep teaches wherein said substrate is formed from a material comprising metals (any conductive surface can be used, such as gold, platinum, and silver [para. 0055]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode according to claim 1.
Pradeep is silent on a sensor comprising the working electrode of claim 1.
However, Pradeep teaches a sensor (electrochemical sensor [para. 0005, 0054]) comprising a working electrode (working electrode, such as a screen printed electrode [para. 0005, 0054]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the working electrode of claim 1 of modified Pradeep into a sensor, as using a sensor allows for measurement of analytes like metal ions (Pradeep, [para. 0054]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Pradeep teaches the sensor of claim 14.
Pradeep teaches further comprising a counter electrode (counter electrode [para. 0011]) and a reference electrode (reference electrode [para. 0011]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 6.
Pradeep teaches further comprising a counter electrode (counter electrode [para. 0011]) and a reference electrode (reference electrode [para. 0011]), wherein said counter electrode is on said build surface of said substrate (counter electrode is provided on substrate [para. 0005]).
Pradeep is silent on a sensor comprising the working electrode according to claim 6.
However, Pradeep teaches a sensor (electrochemical sensor [para. 0005, 0054]) comprising a working electrode (working electrode, such as a screen printed electrode [para. 0005, 0054]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the working electrode of claim 6 of modified Pradeep into a sensor, as using a sensor allows for measurement of analytes like metal ions (Pradeep, [para. 0054]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Pradeep teaches the sensor of claim 16. Pradeep teaches wherein said reference electrode is on said build surface of said substrate (reference electrode is provided on substrate [para. 0005]).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Pradeep teaches the sensor of claim 15. Pradeep teaches wherein said reference electrode comprises silver, silver chloride, or mixtures thereof (reference electrode based on the Ag/AgCl system [para. 0068]).
Regarding Claim 20, Pradeep teaches the sensor of claim 19, wherein said silver, silver chloride, or mixture thereof is part of a first reference layer (silver chloride in the Ag/AgCl system [para. 0068]), and said reference electrode further comprises a second reference layer adjacent said first reference layer and comprising silver (silver in the Ag/AgCl system [para. 0068]). As evidenced by Sophocleous, the most common type of Ag/AgCl electrode is constructed using a silver wire (second reference layer) electroplated with AgCl (first reference layer) (first para. of Section 2.1. Conventional Ag/AgCl reference electrode, page 2).
Regarding Claim 32, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 1.
Pradeep is silent on wherein the metal oxide is in the form of metal oxide nanoparticles having an average particle size of about 10 nm to about 500 nm.
Scremin teaches wherein the metal oxide is in the form of metal oxide nanoparticles (TiO2 colloidal spheres [second para. first col. page 4]) having an average particle size of 267.8 ± 37.8 nm (TiO2 colloidal spheres [second para. first col. page 4]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal oxide of modified Pradeep to be metal oxide nanoparticles having an average particle size of about 268 nm, as taught by Scremin, as TiO2 nanoparticles of this average diameter would allow for the formation of hybrid material surfaces, such as incorporating Au NPs, that favors the occurrence of reactive sites and electron transfer processes (Scremin, [second para. col. 1, page 4]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradeep, Scremin, and Chinh, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Soccol (US 2014/0374251 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 6.
Pradeep is silent on further comprising a current collector layer on said build surface.
Soccol teaches a sensor comprising a plurality of conductive tracks [abstract], and teaches a current collector layer on said build surface (Fig 1A illustrates a top view of a sensor in which a carrier 10 such as a laminate or printed circuit board includes a plurality of conductive tracks 12, such as metal tracks [para. 0049]. As an example, an exposed conductive area 40, which can be an extended portion of the conductive track, can be composed of gold-plated copper [para. 0053]).
Modified Pradeep and Soccol are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrochemical sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the build surface of modified Pradeep by adding a current collector layer, as taught by Soccol, as conductive tracks would provide electrical connections for connecting to electrodes [para. 0064 in Soccol].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 8, and teaches wherein said current collector layer comprises gold and copper (as outlined in the claim 8 rejection above, Soccol teaches a gold-plated copper [para. 0053 in Soccol]).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradeep, Scremin, Chinh, and Soccol, as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Song (Corrosion Protection of Electrically Conductive Surfaces. Metals 2012: 2, 450-477).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 8, and teaches wherein said current collector layer presents an upper surface remote from said build surface (as outlined in claim 8 rejection above Soccol teaches a plurality of conductive tracks 12, corresponding to a current collection layer, with has an upper surface area on the carrier 10, [para. 0049]. As illustrated in the left side of Fig. 2, conductive tracks 12 form an upper surface remote from the build surface).
Pradeep is silent on said working electrode further comprises a protective conductive layer on said upper surface, said protective conductive layer presenting a first surface remote from said upper surface, and said carbon nanotubes being on said first surface.
Song teaches corrosion protection of electrically conductive surfaces, such as electrical contacts [abstract], and teaches that noble metals such as gold and silver can be used as a protective conductive barrier for electrical contacts [second para. of page 451].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the working electrode of modified Pradeep by adding a protective conductive layer (such as gold or silver) on the upper surface of the current collection layer presenting a first surface remote from said upper surface, as taught by Song, as the protective conductive layer prevents degradation and corrosion of the previously exposed electrical contacts (Song, [abstract]). In addition, as the carbon nanotubes can either be placed on the said first surface of the protective conductive layer, the upper surface of the current collector layer, or on the substrate, there are only a finite number of choices for where to place the carbon nanotubes. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the carbon nanotubes on said first surface of the protective conductive layer. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(E)).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 10, and teaches wherein said protective conductive layer comprises gold or silver (as outlined in the claim 10 rejection above, Song teaches gold and silver can be used as a protective conductive barrier [second para. of page 451 of Song]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 10.
Pradeep is silent on further comprising an encapsulant layer over a portion of said first surface.
Soccol teaches an encapsulant layer over a portion of said first surface (an encapsulation 20, which typically covers at least part of the carrier 10, the conductive tracks 12, and the sensing device 30 [para. 0054]; illustrated in Fig. 2. The encapsulation layer is any suitable molding material, such as epoxy- or silicone-based compounds [para. 0054]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a portion of said first surface (protective conductive layer) of modified Pradeep by adding an encapsulation layer to cover the protective conductive layer, as taught by Soccol, as the encapsulation layer would protect the various components of the sensor form external elements, liquids and/or the analyte of interest (Soccol, [para. 0054]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 12, and teaches wherein said encapsulant layer comprises silicones (as outlined in the claim 12 rejection above, Soccol teaches the encapsulation layer can be silicone-based [para. 0054]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradeep, Scremin, and Cinch, as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Yang et al. (Multi-interfacial polyaniline-graphene/platinum counter electrodes for dye-sensitized solar cells Electrochemica Acta. 2015: 173, 331-337).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Pradeep teaches the sensor of claim 15.
Pradeep is silent on a first counter layer comprising gold, silver, platinum, palladium, copper, aluminum, nickel, poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-poly(styrene sulfonate), poly(aniline), a carbonaceous material, or mixtures thereof; and
a second counter layer adjacent said first counter layer, said second counter layer comprising a carbonaceous material, gold, platinum, silver, or mixtures thereof.
Yang teaches multi-interfacial counter electrodes [abstract], and teaches a first counter layer comprising poly(aniline), a carbonaceous material, or mixtures thereof (a multilayer counter electrode composed of a layer of polyaniline-graphene layer [entire section of 2.4: Assembly of multi-interfacial (PANi-G/Pt)n CEs, page 332]); and a second counter layer adjacent said first counter layer, said second counter layer comprising platinum (a multilayer counter electrode composed of a layer of polyaniline-graphene layer adjacent to a platinum layer [entire section of 2.4: Assembly of multi-interfacial (PANi-G/Pt)n CEs, page 332].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the counter electrode of Pradeep to have a first counter layer comprising a mixture of poly(aniline) and a carbonaceous material and a second counter layer adjacent said first counter layer, said second counter layer comprising platinum, as taught by Yang, as a poly(aniline)-graphene/Pt counter electrode would provide increased catalytic activity and charge transfer (Yang [Conclusion, page 336]).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradeep, Scremin, and Chinh, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hyder (Synthesis of Highly Stable Sub-8 nm TiO2 Nanoparticles and Their Multilayer Electrodes of TiO2/MWNT for Electrochemical Applications. Nano Letters 2013. 13, 4610-4619).
Regarding Claim 31, modified Pradeep teaches the working electrode of claim 1.
Pradeep is silent on wherein the carbon nanotubes functionalized with a metal oxide are arranged in a metal-oxide-functionalized carbon nanotube layer having a thickness of about 10 nm to 100 nm.
Hyder teaches carbon nanotube/titanium dioxide (TiO2) electrodes for electrochemical applications (title and abstract), and teaches wherein the carbon nanotubes functionalized with a metal oxide are arranged in a metal-oxide-functionalized carbon nanotube layer having a thickness of 80 nm to 760 nm (electrochemical performance was studied to TiO2/MWNT electrodes with thicknesses ranging from 80-760 nm [second para. col. 1, page 4615; Figure 6, page 4615]).
Modified Pradeep and Hyder are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon nanotube working electrode sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the working electrode of modified Pradeep by the carbon nanotubes functionalized with a metal oxide are arranged in a metal-oxide-functionalized carbon nanotube layer having a thickness of about 80 nm to about 760 nm, as taught by Hyder, as carbon nanotubes functionalized with metal oxide in this thickness range allows for fast electrochemical reactions (Hyder, [Conclusion, page 4617]). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pgs. 6-8, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections and amended claims have been fully considered.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C 103 prior art rejection for Claim 1 by amending claim 1 to recite “wherein said metal nanoparticles are chemically reacted onto a surface of at least a portion of said carbon nanotubes” as Pradeep teaches a layer of gold nanostars applied on a layer of carbon nanotubes, as opposed to gold nanoparticles chemically reacted onto carbon nanotubes.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 RANDALL LEE GAMBLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5492. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00 EST.
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 Van can be reached at (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.
/R.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795