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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has submitted two sets of claims on 20 April 2026 with one submission at 3:30 PM ET and a second submission at 7:10 PM ET with a slight difference in claim language to recite “each side of the at least two sides”. The latter submission is considered the claim set applicant has submitted for examination. Applicant’s amendments are found to be supported at least in Paragraph 33 and Fig.3 of the originally filed specification. No new matter has been found.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng (US 2013/0018599 – previously cited).
Considering claim 1, Peng teaches graphene nano-sensors (Paragraph 1) used in real-time monitoring of gases (Paragraph 4) (i.e. a gas sensor). An example is taught in Figure 4E (reproduced below) of a silicon wafer with an insulating SiO2 layer (i.e. a dielectric layer) thereon having a first side facing the Si wafer and a second side opposite the first and a further graphene layer thereon exposed on top and bottom surfaces where the graphene is in contact with the top side of the SiO2 (Paragraph 22). This configuration is substantially identical to that which applicant discloses as being configured to contact a gas under test on both exposed surfaces (Specification Paragraph 33; Fig. 3) and therefore the graphene nano-sensor of Peng is considered “configurable to contact a gas under test at each side of the at least two surfaces”. As such, the disclosure of Peng anticipates that which is claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Considering claim 2, Figure 4E above depicts a cavity in the SiO2 layer and where the graphene layer is exposed in the cavity.
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 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US 2013/0018599 – previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20160123542 – machine translation previously of record).
Considering claim 3, Peng teaches graphene nano-sensors for gas monitoring (Paragraph 4) with a suspended graphene flake (Paragraph 6) of one or more layers of graphene where the gas is monitored by electrical flow through the graphene (Paragraph 22). However, Peng does not each where the graphene includes 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 Peng 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 Peng 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 Peng 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 Peng 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, Figure 4 of Peng above depicts 1st and 2nd electrodes on the second side of the silica layer.
Considering claim 18, Figure 4 of Peng above depicts where the 1st and 2nd electrodes are spaced apart from the central faces of opposing 1st and 2nd side of the graphene layer and are considered to meet the instant claim using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Considering claim 19, Peng teaches in Figure 4 above a Cr layer contacting the silica layer on both the left and right side of the second surface of the silica layer (i.e. 1st and 2nd electrodes) and where these are coupled to a Cu layer on both Cr layer portions (i.e. 1st and 2nd contacts) and this coupling is substantially identical to that which applicant discloses in instant Fig.4 and is considered coupled to the 1st and 2nd sides of the graphene layer.
Considering claim 20, in addition to the Cr and Cu layers outlined in Figure 4 of Peng above, Peng teaches where two metal electrodes of Pd/Cr are patterned on top of the graphene to electrically connect the graphene layer (Paragraph 22) and the Cr/Cu layers and/or Pd/Cr electrodes may be considered the first and/or second electrodes covering the top and bottom sides of the graphene layer where the bottom side of the graphene is exposed in a cavity in the dielectric silica layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p.6, filed 20 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 17-20 under 35 USC 103 in view of Cai (US 2013/0270511) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Cai teaches a sealing ring to prevent the graphene membrane from gas leaking underneath it (Paragraph 24). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Peng (US 2013/0018599) as outlined above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights