DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has canceled claims 1, 3, 5-9, 13-14 and has incorporated the subject matter from original claims 3 and 5 into claim 15, which has also been amended into an independent claim. No arguments as to why the combination of Serban, Lu and Ye do not teach the limitations of claim 15 have been provided outside of the sentence “It is respectfully submitted that the combination of Serban, Lu and Ye do not teach claim 15, when considered as a whole”. Claim 15 was rejected under Serban in view of Lu, while original claims 3 and 5 were rejected under Serban. Claim 15 has now been amended to include the claim limitations of original claims 3 and 5. As to amended claim 15 Serban teaches “to generate an electric field at the material and enhance sensitivity of the material for detection of molecules” in paragraph 0040.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serban US 20090193897 in view of Lu US 20090011521.
As to claim 2, Serban teaches “wherein the output measures a change in the SAW wave and indicates a property of a target substance ([0040] teaches “This reaction can be used to detect the presence of or to measure the concentration of carbon dioxide. For example, during protonation of nitrogen atoms, the conductivity of the sensing layer increases. In the sensor 100 of FIG. 1, this causes acoustic waves to extend into the sensing layer 108, and the propagation velocity of the waves depend on the physical characteristics of the sensing layer 108.”; [0028] teaches “The waves propagate through the sensor 100 to the interdigital transducer 104b, which produces an output signal based on the waves”).”
As to claim 4, Serban teaches “wherein the SAW enhances sensitivity of the material to detect very small molecules (Abstract teaches “The sensing layer has one or more properties (such as a mass loading, an electrical property, or a visco-elastic property) that vary based on at least one measurand to be measured by the sensor (such as carbon dioxide)”).
As to claim 10, Serban teaches “wherein the property change is in response to the material contacting a target substance ([0034] teaches “As a result, changes in the propagation velocity of the acoustic waves can be directly related to variations in the measurand, and propagation velocity changes in the sensor 200 can be monitored and used to determine the presence or concentration of the measurand.”).”
As to claim 11, Serban teaches “wherein the target substance is a fluid ([0002] teaches that many industries this type of sensor can be utilized in, which includes industries involving gasses and fluid. Carbon dioxide is used as the target in this prior art and this can be in a gaseous or liquid state).”
As to claim 12, Serban teaches “wherein the fluid is a gas or liquid ([0002] teaches that many industries this type of sensor can be utilized in, which includes industries involving gasses and fluid. Carbon dioxide is used as the target in this prior art and this can be in a gaseous or liquid state).”
As to claim 15, Serban teaches “A gas sensor ([0002]) comprising: a substrate having a substrate top surface (Figure 2B, 202 has a top surface); a two-dimensional (2D) material assembly having a first side and a second side (Figure 2B, 208), said 2D material assembly having an insulator layer with an insulator bottom surface on said substrate top surface and an insulator top surface ([0039] teaches “the polyaniline used to form the sensing layers may be unsubstituted or substituted and may be soluble in organic solvents or water. The polyaniline could, for example, be used in the form of an emeraldine base that acts as an insulator”. Based on this teaching, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to have the 2D sensing material have an insulator top and bottom surface. Using an insulator material is known and taught, therefore applying it to specific locations on a known element involves routine skill in the art), said 2D material assembly further having a 2D material layer with a 2D material bottom surface on said insulator top surface and a 2D material top surface ([0039] teaches “the polyaniline used to form the sensing layers may be unsubstituted or substituted and may be soluble in organic solvents or water. The polyaniline could, for example, be used in the form of an emeraldine base that acts as an insulator”. Based on this teaching, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to have the 2D sensing material have an insulator top and bottom surface. Using an insulator material is known and taught, therefore applying it to specific locations on a known element involves routine skill in the art); and a surface acoustic wave (SAW) generator comprising: an input InterDigital Transducer (IDT) positioned on said substrate top surface at the first side of said 2D material assembly and configured to generate a SAW wave that travels across said 2D material layer from the first side of said 2D material assembly to the second side of said 2D material assembly (Figure 2B, 204a sends a wave across to 204b) to generate an electric field at the material ([0040] teaches “Similarly, in FIG. 2, a change in the conductivity of the sensing layer 208 changes the electric field created by the acoustic waves”).” and enhance sensitivity of the material for detection of molecules ([0040]. Furthermore, this claim pertains to functional language. The prior art teaches a SAW with a sensing material; therefore it can also enhance the sensitivity of the material
an output IDT positioned on said substrate top surface at the second side of said 2D material assembly and configured to receive the SAW wave that traveled to the second side of said 2D material assembly (Figure 2B, 204b), said output IDT configured to measure characteristics of the received SAW wave ([0040] teaches “a change in the conductivity of the sensing layer 208 changes the electric field created by the acoustic waves, thereby changing the waves' propagation velocity.”) and provide an output (104b; [0028]).”
Saber does not explicitly teach “said 2D material assembly having an insulator layer with an insulator bottom surface on said substrate top surface and an insulator top surface”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the aforementioned claim limitation because it is taught in the prior art to use a material for the sensing layer that can act as an insulator. Choosing a type of material only requires routine skill in the art.
The prior arts do not teach “and one or more electrodes coupled to said 2D material to detect a change in property of said 2D material”.
Lu teaches “and one or more electrodes coupled to said 2D material to detect a change in property of said 2D material ([0018] teaches “Upon making the surface acoustic wave sensing element, a layer of gold (conductive metal) electrode is coated on the piezoelectric film to become the Chemical Interaction Material (CIM) layer. The sensing material is then connected to the surface of gold electrode.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Lu and Serban. Serban teaches a 2D material layer located between the IDTs. Lu teaches that a sensing layer can be connected to an electrode, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could modify the sensing layer in Serban with the addition of electrodes to aid in wave sensing. This modification would aid in detecting changes based on the propagation of the wave from one IDT to the other IDT.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serban US 20090193897 in view of Lu US 20090011521 and in further view of Ye US 20210351761.
As to claim 16, the prior arts do not teach that electrodes are on the top surface of the material.
Ye teaches “wherein said one or more electrodes are coupled to said 2D material top surface (Figure 1B, 103 is the sensing layer and 105a and 105b are electrodes on the top surface of the sensing layer).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Ye with Lu and Serban. Placing the electrodes are needed would only involve routine skill in the art when trying to optimize the performance of the sensor.
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 TARUN SINHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571)270-0349. 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.
/TARUN SINHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863