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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “doped with nitrogen and/or phosphorus atoms in an amount of from 2 at% to 7.5 at%” and the claim also recites “preferably from 3 at% to 5 at%.” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2020/0403068) in view of Anglin (US 2017/0307576).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas teaches a doped graphene layer structure having at least first and second electrical contacts (200, Refer to Figure 2) The doped graphene layer structure is doped with nitrogen and/or phosphorus. (Refer to paragraphs [0058-0059]).
Thomas fails to teach atoms in an amount of from 1 at% to 10 at%; and a sample-surface between said electrical contacts for receiving an analyte composition to be tested and the sample-surface is functionalized with a plurality of analyte-receptors, each analyte-receptor being bound to a nitrogen or phosphorus atom of the doped graphene layer structure by a covalent linker moiety.
As disclosed in Thomas chemically doped graphene layer structures are well known in the art, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Thomas the doping number of atoms from 1 at% to 10at% in order to achieve a doped graphene layer that exhibits excellent electrical and physical properties.
Anglin teaches a device for measurement of analyte concentration comprising a graphene layer having a sample-surface between electrical contacts for receiving an analyte composition to be tested (refer to paragraph [0026]) the sample-surface is functionalized with a plurality of analyte-receptors and attached to a graphene layer (refer to paragraph [0002).
It would have been obvious to modify the device of Thomas such that the doped graphene structure was functionalized with a plurality of analyte-receptors as disclosed in Anglin in order further increase versatility of the device such as testing analytes.
Regarding claim 2, Thomas fails to teach the doped graphene layer structure is doped with nitrogen and/or phosphorus atoms in an amount of from 2 at% to 7.5 at%. Applicants further recite “preferably from 3 at% to 5 at%”, it is reminded that “preferably” is considered optional language. Tt would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Thomas the doping number of atoms from 2 at% to 7.5 at% in order to achieve a doped graphene layer that exhibits excellent electrical and physical properties.
Regarding claim 3, the doping consists of nitrogen atoms. (Refer to paragraph [0058])
Regarding claim 4, a non-metallic substrate, wherein the doped graphene layer structure is provided on the substrate. (Refer to paragraph [0038])
Regarding claim 5, the doped graphene layer structure is obtained by CVD growth directly on the substrate, preferably using a carbon-containing precursor comprising nitrogen. (Refer to paragraph [0061])
Regarding claim 6, the substrate comprises silicon, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, silicon dioxide, sapphire, hafnium dioxide, yttria-stabilised zirconia, magnesium aluminate, yttrium orthoaluminate, strontium titanate, calcium difluoride, germanium and/or a III/V semiconductor. (Refer to paragraph [0038])
Regarding claim 7, Thomas fails to teah the doped graphene layer structure has a charge carrier density of less than 10¹² cm⁻².
Anglin further teaches charge density in the graphene layer depending on the interaction of an analyte. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Thomas such that the doped graphene layer structure has a charge carrier density of less than 10¹² cm⁻² in order to have complete optimization of the device during testing.
Regarding claim 8, Thomas fails to teach the doped graphene layer structure has a charge carrier mobility of greater than 4,000 cm²/Vs, preferably greater than 6,000 cm²/Vs, more preferably greater than 8000 cm²/Vs. Applicants further recite “preferably” it is reminded that this is optional language and is not required by the prior art.
Anglin teaches in order to preserve a carbon-to-carbon network a charge carrier mobility is maintained. (Refer to paragraph [0047]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Thomas such that the doped graphene layer structure has a charge carrier mobility of greater than 4,000 cm²/Vs in order to preserve the carbon-to-carbon network while testing.
Regarding claim 10, each analyte-receptor is covalently bonded to the linker moiety (refer to rejection of claim 1), preferably via an amide functional group. Applicants further recite “preferably” it is reminded that this is optional language and is not required by the prior art.
Regarding claim 17, Thomas fails to teach the analyte-receptors are sensitive to the presence of the predetermined analyte; contacting the sample-surface with the sample composition; and observing an electrical output between the first and second electrical contacts to determine whether or not the sample composition comprises the predetermined analyte.
Anglin teaches a device for measurement of analyte concentration comprising a graphene layer that attaches receptor molecules that sensitizes the device toward a particular molecule. (Refer to paragraph [0002])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Thomas with analyte-receptors attached to the doped graphene layer of Thomas in order to further increase the versatility such as an analyte sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11 are 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 closest prior art fails to teach each linker moiety is covalently bonded to the nitrogen via a carbonyl group thereby forming an amide functional group and each linker moiety comprises a polyethylene glycol spacer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, 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, 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.
/JYOTI NAGPAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798