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 .
Claim Status
Claims 9-18 are pending and are not examined. Claims 1-8 and 19-28 are withdrawn and are not examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strachan (US Pub 2016/0155971; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 9, Strachan teaches a sequencing device comprising:
a substrate supporting a graphene monolayer; a molecular bridge at a nanogap, the molecular bridge defined in the graphene monolayer ([0039] To further examine the more salient features of the present invention, FIG. 1a shows catalytically-etched bi-layer graphene that is situated on an insulating SiO.sub.2 substrate. [0040] [0040] The present invention provides in part for carbon nanotubes as a channel material across a nanogap between commensurate graphene electrodes.)
and electrodes configured to induce electron transport along the molecular bridge ([0040] The hybrid nanotube-graphene-nanogap architecture modifies and
significantly reduces the contact resistance is illustrated in FIG. 2a. This device architecture consists of a channel material (exemplified by carbon nanotube (CNT)) that bridges two graphene electrodes separated by a nanogap with a size ≦10 nm.)
wherein the molecular bridge has a cross-section within a range of from about 1 to about 2 nanometers and has a ballistic conductivity that is the same or substantially the same as that of a nanographene ribbon ([0004] The present invention provides a multi-terminal device, comprising a substrate with an atomically-thin source electrode and an atomically-thin drain electrode both on a top surface thereof. The source electrode and the drain electrode are separated by a nanogap of between 0.3 and 100 nm. [0018] FIG. 5 shows an AFM image of a CNT traversing a graphene nanogap etch track. FIG. 5a shows a 1.3 nm FLG (few-layer graphene) sample with etched tracks (dark gray) and CNTs (white lines). [0028] As would be understood to those in the art, a single piece of graphene may be cut in to two separate electrodes with a gap between them, such as an etched nanogap. Optionally, between the two electrodes lies a nanoribbon of 10 nm width or less that may provide a gate function between the electrodes or as an alternative charge injection route to the channel. [0030] These features allow for a wide array of varying devices to be achieved. The devices provided by the features of the present invention allow for all the materials present within the device to be optionally atomically-thin (˜1 nm or less).)
Regarding Claim 10, Strachan teaches the sequencing device according to claim 9, wherein the nanogap has a width no greater than about 5 nanometers ([0040] This device architecture consists of a channel material (exemplified by carbon nanotube (CNT)) that bridges two graphene electrodes separated by a nanogap with a size ≦10 nm.).
Regarding Claim 12, Strachan teaches the sequencing device according to claim 9, further comprising an insulating layer shielding the electrodes ([0039] To further examine the more salient features of the present invention, FIG. 1a shows catalytically-etched bi-layer graphene that is situated on an insulating SiO.sub.2 substrate.).
Regarding Claim 14, Strachan teaches the sequencing device according to claim 9, wherein the molecular bridge comprises a planar portion of the graphene monolayer having ends respectively coupled to portions of the graphene monolayer that respectively couple to the electrodes ([0040] This device architecture consists of a channel material (exemplified by carbon nanotube (CNT)) that bridges two graphene electrodes separated by a nanogap with a size ≦10 nm.).
Regarding Claim 15, Strachan teaches the sequencing device according to claim 9, comprising an array including two or more molecular bridges including the molecular bridge ([0043] FIG. 4b shows an example of one such multi-nanotube channel that bridges a few-layer graphene nanogap.)
Regarding Claim 16, Strachan teaches the sequencing device according to claim 9, wherein the nanogap comprises forms a fluidic channel configured to pass a sample within Fano resonance range of the molecular bridge ([0040] The present invention provides in part for carbon nanotubes as a channel material across a nanogap between commensurate graphene electrodes. The hybrid nanotube-graphene-nanogap architecture modifies and significantly reduces the contact resistance is illustrated in FIG. 2a.).
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strachan (US Pub 2016/0155971; previously cited), in view of Choi (US Pub 2019/0383770; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 13, Strachan teaches the sequencing device according to claim 9.
Strachan is silent to further comprising a photoresist coating over the graphene monolayer.
Choi teaches [0128] FIG. 2A illustrates the process of e-beam patterning of a MoS.sub.2 300 layer using negative or positive resist. The MoS.sub.2 300 layer (or a TNS layer in general) is coated with a resist material 302 (e.g., either a well-known positive photoresist layer such as PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate) or a negative photoresist layer such as HSQ (hydrogen silsesquioxane) or SU-8) by spin coating or thin film deposition. The photoresist is then exposed to UV light irradiation (or ion beam, neutron beam or x-ray beam irradiation in terms of general lithography), and a pattern is formed by differential developing and chemical or other process of removal of UV-reacted vs UV-unreacted local regions of the resist layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a photoresist coating, as taught by Choi, to the graphene monolayer, in the device of Strachan, to allow for a space for nanopatterning.
Claims 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strachan (US Pub 2016/0155971; previously cited), in view of Vatannia (US Pub 2020/0338553; previously cited).
Regarding Claims 11, 17, and 18, Strachan teaches the sequencing device according to claim 9.
Strachan is silent to the molecular bridge is prepared by DFT-guided solution-based synthesis, a controller electrically coupled to the electrodes and configured to interrogate, using electron transport along the molecular bridge between the electrodes, Fano resonance between the molecular bridge and a molecule in the nanogap, and a fluidic system integrating the sequencing device wherein the fluidic system is configured to stream a sample within Fano resonance range of the molecular bridge.
Vatannia teaches in the related art of macromolecules. [0060] In another aspect, a system for molecular analysis may comprise: a plurality of electrodes disposed along a fluid flow path; and a controller operatively coupled to said plurality of electrodes, wherein said controller is configured to (i) subject a biopolymer to flow along said fluid flow path and between said plurality of electrodes, (ii) use said plurality of electrodes to detect signals indicative of resonant tunneling currents from individual subunits of said biopolymer, and (iii) use said signals detected in (ii) to generate a sequence of said biopolymer. [0103] FIG. 1 schematically illustrates a system for molecular analysis 100. The system may comprise an electron source 110, a first electrode 120, a fluidic channel (or fluid flow path) 130, a second electrode 140, and an electric current sensor 150. The electron source 110 may be electrically coupled to the first electrode 120, such as by a wire or other electric contact. The second electrode 140 may be electrically coupled to the electric current sensor 150, such as by a wire or other electric contact. The first and second electrodes may be physically separated by a gap. The gap may span all or a part of a width of the fluidic channel 130. [0107] The central kinetic energy required to excite a particular nucleotide, nucleoside, nucleotide pair, nucleoside pair, methylated nucleotide, methylated nucleoside, methylated nucleotide pair, methylated nucleoside pair, or amino acid may be determined theoretically (for instance, using density functional theory calculations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added bridge molecules are prepared by DFT-guided solution-based synthesis, coupled to a controller for analyzing a sample by Fano resonance transmission, and integrated into a fluidic system for streaming a sample over the molecular bridge, as taught by Vatannia, in the device of Strachan, to allow for molecular analysis of sample flowing through a fluidic channel, as taught by Vatannia, in [0005].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the prior art of Strachan does not disclose “wherein the molecular bridge had a cross-section within a range of from about 1 to about 2 nanometers and has a ballistic conductivity that is the same or substantially the same as that of a nanographene ribbon.”
In response, the examiner notes that the prior art of Strachan teaches [0018] FIG. 5 shows an AFM image of a CNT traversing a graphene nanogap etch track. FIG. 5a shows a 1.3 nm FLG (few-layer graphene) sample with etched tracks (dark gray) and CNTs (white lines). [0028] As would be understood to those in the art, a single piece of graphene may be cut in to two separate electrodes with a gap between them, such as an etched nanogap. Optionally, between the two electrodes lies a nanoribbon of 10 nm width or less that may provide a gate function between the electrodes or as an alternative charge injection route to the channel. The devices provided by the features of the present invention allow for all the materials present within the device to be optionally atomically-thin (˜1 nm or less). Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACQUELINE BRAZIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 at 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.
/JB/
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798