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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 November 2025 has been entered.
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 1-2 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2013/0270511 – previously cited) and claims 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2013/0270511) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20160123542 – machine translation previously of record).
Considering claim 1, Cai teaches nano-devices for pressure senor devices (Paragraph 1) to measure the pressure of gases, etc. (Paragraph 2) (i.e. a gas sensor). An embodiment is taught in Fig. 1B (reproduced below) of nano-pressure sensor (100) comprising substrate (105), insulating layer having a lower first surface opposite an upper second surface (110), graphene membrane (125) over recessed cavity (115) (Paragraph 21) where (125) is in direct contact with (110) and has upper and lower exposed surfaces. The substrate may be silicon (Paragraph 33) and the insulating layer may be silicon oxide, etc. (Paragraph 34).
PNG
media_image1.png
288
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed gas sensor this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Cai as this is considered a combination of conventionally known layers known to form gas sensing devices and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 2, Cai teaches where cavity (115) is formed in the insulating layer (Paragraph 21) and where the lower surface of the graphene layer is exposed in the cavity (Fig. 1B - above).
Considering claim 3, Cai does not teach the claimed graphene layer including a microstructure sensing element including a plurality of interconnected units of graphene tubes.
In a related field of endeavor, Lee teaches an activated carbon nanotube-graphene structure (abstract) used in gas sensors, batteries, etc. (Paragraph 6). Figure 3 (reproduced below) depicts the three-dimensional structure of layers of aligned carbon nanotubes connected by alternating layers of graphene sheets (Paragraphs 25 and 33). The carbon nanotubes may be single- or multi-layered (Paragraph 35) (i.e. graphene tubes). The carbon nanotube-graphene structure has high conductivity (Paragraph 27) and is taught to have high sensitivity (Paragraph 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
488
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As Cai and Lee both teach graphene materials for gas sensors they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the graphene structure of Cai and to substitute the carbon nanotube-graphene structure taught by Lee as this is known to have high conductivity and high sensitivity and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 4, Figure 3 above of Lee teaches a top layer of carbon nanotubes (e.g. a first unit) is connected to the layer of carbon nanotubes below (e.g. a second unit) via the graphene sheet.
Considering claim 5, Figure 3 of Lee above depicts the ordered arrangement of carbon nanotubes in a symmetric, repeating pattern in three dimensional space.
Considering claim 6, Lee teaches where the three dimensional structure is free standing (Paragraph 27) (i.e. a rigid structure).
Considering claim 7, Figure 3 of Lee above depicts a microlattice of the interconnected nanotubes and graphene sheets.
Considering claim 8, Figure 3 of Lee above depicts where the carbon nanotubes are hollow.
Considering claim 9, Lee teaches where the carbon nanotubes are bonded via positively charged nanotubes and negatively charged functional groups on the graphene (Paragraph 53).
Considering claims 10-16, modified Cai does not specifically teach the claimed “formed by a process…”. However, these limitations are product-by-process limitations and are not considered to render a patentable distinction over the prior art absent a showing as to how the claimed process affects the final structure of the claimed gas sensor, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2113. Modified Cai teaches a substantially identical structure as that which is claimed and the therefore is considered to meet the claimed product-by-process limitations.
Considering claim 17, Cai teaches where electrodes (132) and (133) are formed on the second surface of the insulating layer (Paragraph 25).
Considering claim 18, Cai teaches in Fig.1B above where the electrodes (132) and (133) are spaced apart from the central faces of opposing 1st and 2nd sides of the graphene layer and are considered to meet the instant claim using the broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111.
Considering claim 19, Cai teaches where the electrodes layer may be one or more layers of Ti, Pd, Au, etc. (Paragraph 40) and combined with the teachings of Fig.1B above, a lower electrode layer for each of (132) and (133) may be considered the claimed 1st and 2nd contacts between the insulating layer and graphene where the upper electrode layers contact the second graphene face.
Considering claim 20, Cai teaches in Fig.1B above where (132) and (133) cover parts of the upper side of the graphene layer and where the lower surface of the graphene layer is exposed in the recessed cavity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p.5, 1st section, filed 13 November 2025, with respect to 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 19 has been withdrawn. Applicant has removed the new matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pp.5-6, second section, filed 13 November 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 in view of Peng and Lee have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims to recite direct contact not disclosed by primary reference Peng. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cai and Lee as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rosenblatt et al. (US 2012/0206012) teaches electromechanical devices for sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784