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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Note that dependent claims will have the deficiencies of base and intervening claims.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention:
a) claim 6 requires “. . . ., wherein the semiconductive channel member comprises graphene material or Molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) or other thin membranes. [italicizing by the Examiner]” There is no prior mention of “thin membranes” or even of just “membranes” in any of claims 6, 5, or 1. So, it is not clear what membranes the “other thin membranes” are alternatives to.
b) claim 6 requires “. . . ., wherein the semiconductive channel member comprises graphene material or Molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) or other thin membranes. [italicizing by the Examiner]” The scope of the term “thin membranes” is indefinite because there is no disclosed or claimed range for what is “thin” and the term “membrane” covers an innumerable number of materials polymers, ceramics, glass, and other types of materials from which membranes may be made. Moreover, the only mention of the word membrane in Applicant's as -filed specification is once – “(cell membrane)”. See Applicant’s specification paragraph [0045]. Applicant is requested to clarify the scope of “thin membranes”.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goutman Koley US 2012/0068156 A1 (hereafter “Koley”) as evidenced by Luo et al., “Synthesis of Long Indium Nitride Nanowires with Uniform Diameters in Large Quantities,” small 2005, 1, No. 10, 1004 – 1009 (hereafter “Luo”).
Addressing claim 1, Koley discloses a biosensor device (see the title, paragraph [0012], last sentence; and paragraph [0054], first sentence) comprising:
a substrate (12 in Figure 1A; see paragraph [0030]);
a semiconductive channel member (20 in Figure 1A; the main suggested composition and structure for 20 is an indium nitrogen (InN) nanowire. See paragraph [0033], first sentence; and paragraph [0034], first sentence. Luo evidences that InN nanowire is semiconducting. See Luo first sentence of 1. Introduction.1) the channel is suspending between a pair of contacts (18a and 18b in Koley Figures 1A and 1B; see also paragraph [0031], first sentence), on the substrate (Koley Figures 1A and 1B), wherein the semiconductive channel member comprises a convex protruding channel structure (Koley Figures 1A, 1B, 4, 6A, and 6B); and
wherein the convex protruding channel structure is configured to detect both electrical and mechanical cellular responses (this limitation may be inferred from Figures 6a and 6B, which show the convex protruding channel structure being used to make measurements on a neuron, along with paragraphs [0034] and [0054], which discloses that these measurement are at least electrical ([0034] – “ The natural triangular geometry of the v-shaped nanocantilevers combined with their favorable electrical properties makes them very suitable for detection of electrical signal propagation in neuronal cells with very high spatial and temporal resolution, which is currently unavailable.” [0054] – “In addition, the presence of electrons at the surface of the InN nanowires, and their high mobility can lead to much higher sensitivity in the measurement of electrical signals. Measurements of the action potential propagation in a single neuron (from fetal rat hippocampus) can be made by positioning the array of VNC probes at multiple locations on the axon as shown schematically in FIG. 6A.”), and paragraph [0029], which states, “[0029] The v-shaped nanocantilevers can be utilized for highly sensitive measurements/detections of surface work function (SWF, Φ), electric potential (V), conductance (a), and surface stress (S) changes. [italicizing by the Examiner]”2, and paragraph[0045], which discloses that three different physical parameters (namely, SWF, conductivity, and surface stress) may be measured in combination (“[0045] As stated, the InN VNC sensors are capable of performing highly sensitive detection based on changes in 3 different physical parameters: SWF (ΔΦ), conductivity (Δσ), and surface stress (ΔS). . . . The choice of either of these modes, either individually, or in combination (for multimodal detection), depends on the properties of the functionalization layer corresponding to a target analyte, . . . .[italicizing by the Examiner]).
Addressing claim 2, for the additional limitation of this claim the Examiner is construing either n+ layer 14 or SiO2 layer 16 in Koley Figures 1 and 2, and the SiO2 layer 16 in Figure 4 as the claimed mechanical support structure.
Addressing claim 3, for the additional limitation of this claim recall the following form the rejection of underlying claim 1 above
a semiconductive channel member (20 in Figure 1A; the main suggested composition and structure for 20 is an indium nitrogen (InN) nanowire. See paragraph [0033], first sentence; and paragraph [0034], first sentence. Luo evidences that InN nanowire is semiconducting. See Luo first sentence of 1. Introduction.3) the channel is suspending between a pair of contacts (18a and 18b in Koley Figures 1A and 1B; see also paragraph [0031], first sentence), on the substrate (Koley Figures 1A and 1B), wherein the semiconductive channel member comprises a convex protruding channel structure (Koley Figures 1A, 1B, 4, 6A, and 6B); and . . . .
Addressing claim 10, for the additional limitation of this claim see Koley
Figures 4, 6A, and 6B, which discloses a one-dimensional array of biosensors.
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.
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.
10. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Eschermann et al., “Action potentials of HL-1 cells recorded with silicon nanowire transistors,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 083703 (2009) (hereafter “Eschermann”) and Cohen-Karni et al., “Flexible electrical recording from cells using nanowire transistor arrays,” PNAS | May 5, 2009 | vol. 106 | no. 18 | 7309–7313 (hereafter “Cohen-Karni”).
Addressing claim 4, as a first matter, Koley as evidenced by Luo meets all of the limitations of underlying claim 1. See the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above.
In Koley, the semiconductive channel member comprises an InN nanowire, not a silicon wire.
Eschermann discloses using silicon nanowire transistors “. . . .to record the extracellular potential of the spontaneous activity of cardiac muscle HL-1 cells.” See the title, Abstract, and Figures 1 and 2. Cohen-Karni discloses using flexible silicon nanowire transistor arrays to record electrical signals for cardiomyocyte cells. See the title, Abstract, and Figures 1 and 2. Barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, in light of Eschermann and Cohen-Karni to have the nanowire in Koley be a silicon nanowire instead of an InN nanowire is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)), especially if the cell whose responses to be detected is a cardiac cell instead of a neuronal cell.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Rajan et al., “Performance limitations for
nanowire/nanoribbon biosensors,” WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2013, 5:629–645. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1235 (hereafter “Rajan”).
Addressing claim 5, in Koley the semiconductive channel member comprises a semiconducting nanowire, not a nanoribbon. However, barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, to have the nanowire instead be a nanoribbon is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)), especially as Rajan discloses, in regard to bioFETs,
PNG
media_image1.png
528
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
140
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See Rajan page 630.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Cohen-Karni et al., “Graphene and Nanowire Transistors for Cellular Interfaces and Electrical Recording,” Nano Lett. 2010, 10, 1098–1102 (hereafter “Cohen-Karni II”) and Deng et al., “Wrinkled, rippled and crumpled
graphene: an overview of formation mechanism, electronic properties, and applications,” Materials Today Volume 19,Number 4 May 2016 (hereafter “Deng”).
Addressing claim 6, as a first matter, Koley as evidenced by Luo meets all of the limitations of underlying claim 1. See the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above.
In Koley, the semiconductive channel member comprises an InN nanowire, not a “graphene material or Molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) or other thin membranes.”
Cohen-Karni II discloses graphene and nanowire transistors for cellular interfaces and electrical recording, for example on cardiomyocytes. See the title, Abstract, and Figure 1. Barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, in light of Cohen-Karni II to have the semiconductor channel in Koley be a graphene material instead of an InN nanowire is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)), especially if the cell whose responses to be detected is a cardiac cell instead of a neuronal cell. Note that in light of Deng one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to impart a convex from to the graphene material. See Deng the title, abstract, and Figures 2(c) and 4(c).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Rajan as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Eschermann and Cohen-Karni.
Addressing claim 7, in Koley as modified by Rajan the semiconductor channel member comprises an InN nanoribbon.
Eschermann discloses using silicon nanowire transistors “. . . .to record the extracellular potential of the spontaneous activity of cardiac muscle HL-1 cells.” See the title, Abstract, and Figures 1 and 2. Cohen-Karni discloses using flexible silicon nanowire transistor arrays to record electrical signals for cardiomyocyte cells. See the title, Abstract, and Figures 1 and 2. Barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, in light of Eschermann and Cohen-Karni to have the nanoribbon in Koley as modified by Rajan be a silicon nanoribbon instead of an InN nanoribbon is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)), especially if the cell whose responses to be detected is a cardiac cell instead of a neuronal cell.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Tian et al., “Microporous nanowire nanoelectronics scaffolds for synthetic tissues,” NATURE MATERIALS | VOL 11 | NOVEMBER 2012 (hereafter “Tian”).
Addressing claim 11, as a first matter, Koley as evidenced by Luo meets all of the limitations of underlying claim 10. See the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above.
Koley does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the array of biosensor devices is integrated in a porous scaffold structure.
Tian discloses microporous nanowire electrotonic scaffolds in which nanowire FETs are integrated for synthetic tissues. See the title, abstract, and Figures 1, 3, 5, and 6(d). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to integrate the array of biosensor devices of Koley in a porous scaffold structure as taught by Tian because this will expand the usefulness of the array biosensor devices beyond making measurements at different regions of a neuron to making measurements on various artificial tissues to detect medical illnesses. For example,4,
PNG
media_image3.png
102
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. . . .
PNG
media_image4.png
226
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
See Tian page 993.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Brelje et al., “Cardiac Muscle Tissue”, online Histology Guide, 2025 (hereafter “Brelje”) and “Neurons” online article, Beckman-Coulter, 2025 (hereafter “Beckman Coulter”).
Addressing claim 12, as a first matter, Koley as evidenced by Luo meets all of the limitations of underlying claim 1. See the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above. As for the additional limitation of claim 12, although Koley does not disclose specific dimensions or dimension ranges for the biosensor device, Koley does show in Figures 6A, which are not rot scale, the biosensor as being comparable in size, if not smaller, than the soma of a neuron. Beckman-Coulter evidences the soma of a neuron varies in size form 4-100 µm (see the seconds paragraph of Formation and Structure). Brelje discloses the following dimensions for a cardiac muscle cell
PNG
media_image5.png
202
388
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Thus, in light of Beckman-Coulter and Brelje, if the biosensor of Koley is not already smaller than a cardiac cell, to have it be so is prima facie obvious as a change in size (length and/or width) or proportion (overall dimensions) with no material effect on the operation of the biosensor device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Wilson et al., “InN Nanowires Based Multi-Modal Environmental Sensors,” Conference: Sensors, 2013 IEEE (hereafter “Wilson”).
Addressing claim 13, as a first matter, Koley as evidenced by Luo meets all of the limitations of underlying claim 1. See the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above.
As for the claim 13 limitation, “ . . . ., wherein the electrical cellular response is detected via a field effect . . . .”, this is alluded, if not implied by the following in Koley, “[0065] Preliminary investigation of the electrical properties of the nanowires has been carried out by fabricating field effect transistors in a back-gated configuration using doped Si substrates as the back gate, and 100 nm SiO.sub.2 layer as the gate dielectric . . . . These results, which represent the mean values for more than 20 devices studied, is a dramatic improvement in comparison to commonly measured data on InN nanowire FETs . . . .” In any event, Wilson discloses that InN nanowires are suitable for use in field effect transistor devices (see the Abstract and the last paragraph of
I. Introduction). Thus, in light of Wilson, to have the electrical cellular response in Koley be detected via a field effect, if not already intended, is prima facie obvious as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable result. See MPEP 2143(I)(D). This is especially so as Koley discloses that in one embodiment the biosensor device is structurally and compositionally configured as if were to be used to detect field effect. Compare Koley Figure 1B with Wilson Figure 1A, noting especially the SiO2 layer and n+ Si layer in each figure.
As for the claim 13 limitation, “ . . . ., wherein . . . . and the mechanical cellular response is detected via a piezoresistive effect…”, this may be inferred from the following in Koley
PNG
media_image6.png
268
436
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
97
430
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Wilson.
Addressing claim 14, Koley discloses a biosensor device (see the title, paragraph [0012], last sentence; and paragraph [0054], first sentence) comprising:
a substrate (12 in Figure 1A; see paragraph [0030]);
a semiconductive channel member (20 in Figure 1A; the main suggested composition and structure for 20 is an indium nitrogen (InN) nanowire. See paragraph [0033], first sentence; and paragraph [0034], first sentence. Luo evidences that InN nanowire is semiconducting. See Luo first sentence of 1. Introduction.5) the channel is suspending between a pair of contacts (18a and 18b in Koley Figures 1A and 1B; see also paragraph [0031], first sentence), on the substrate (Koley Figures 1A and 1B), wherein the semiconductive channel member comprises a convex protruding channel structure (Koley Figures 1A, 1B, 4, 6A, and 6B); and
wherein the convex protruding channel structure is configured to detect both electrical and mechanical cellular responses (this limitation may be inferred from Figures 6a and 6B, which show the convex protruding channel structure being used to make measurements on a neuron, along with paragraphs [0034] and [0054], which discloses that these measurement are at least electrical ([0034] – “ The natural triangular geometry of the v-shaped nanocantilevers combined with their favorable electrical properties makes them very suitable for detection of electrical signal propagation in neuronal cells with very high spatial and temporal resolution, which is currently unavailable.” [0054] – “In addition, the presence of electrons at the surface of the InN nanowires, and their high mobility can lead to much higher sensitivity in the measurement of electrical signals. Measurements of the action potential propagation in a single neuron (from fetal rat hippocampus) can be made by positioning the array of VNC probes at multiple locations on the axon as shown schematically in FIG. 6A.”), and paragraph [0029], which states, “[0029] The v-shaped nanocantilevers can be utilized for highly sensitive measurements/detections of surface work function (SWF, Φ), electric potential (V), conductance (a), and surface stress (S) changes. [italicizing by the Examiner]”6, and paragraph[0045], which discloses that three different physical parameters (namely, SWF, conductivity, and surface stress) may be measured in combination (“[0045] As stated, the InN VNC sensors are capable of performing highly sensitive detection based on changes in 3 different physical parameters: SWF (ΔΦ), conductivity (Δσ), and surface stress (ΔS). . . . The choice of either of these modes, either individually, or in combination (for multimodal detection), depends on the properties of the functionalization layer corresponding to a target analyte, . . . .[italicizing by the Examiner]).
As for the having the biosensor device of Koley be able to detect electrical cellular response via a field effect, this is alluded, if not implied, by the following in Koley, “[0065] Preliminary investigation of the electrical properties of the nanowires has been carried out by fabricating field effect transistors in a back-gated configuration using doped Si substrates as the back gate, and 100 nm SiO.sub.2 layer as the gate dielectric . . . . These results, which represent the mean values for more than 20 devices studied, is a dramatic improvement in comparison to commonly measured data on InN nanowire FETs . . . .” In any event, Wilson discloses that InN nanowires are suitable for use in field effect transistor devices (see the Abstract and the last paragraph of
I. Introduction). Thus, in light of Wilson, to have the electrical cellular response in Koley be detected via a field effect, if not already intended, is prima facie obvious as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable result. See MPEP 2143(I)(D). This is especially so as Koley discloses that in one embodiment the biosensor device is structurally and compositionally configured as if were to be used to detect field effect. Compare Koley Figure 1B with Wilson Figure 1A, noting especially the SiO2 layer and n+ Si layer in each figure.
That is, Koley as modified by Wilson discloses the biosensor device used in the method of Applicant’s claim 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to use this biosensor device to detect an electrical cellular response of a biological tissue that is sensed by the biosensor device via a field effect; and detect a mechanical cellular response of the biological tissue that is sensed by the biosensor device via a piezoresistive effect because this is just using the biosensor device of Koley as modified by Wilson, especially in light of Koley Figures 6A and 6B, which show exemplary schematic diagrams showing pre- and post-synaptic neurons and probe positions. See also Koley paragraph [0022].
Last, although Koley Figures 6A and 6B suggests positioning the biosensor device above the biological tissue, clearly it could be placed underneath if desired or indeed on an external portion of the tissue. Barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, where on the tissue the biosensor device is positioned will just be a matter of convenience and what parameter the biosensor is to measure.
Claims 15 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Wilson as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Eschermann and Cohen-Karni.
Addressing claims 15 and 16, in Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Wilson the biological tissue comprises neural tissue. However, this is clearly only example tissue. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that biosensing method could be performed on another type of body tissue, such as cardiac tissue, especially in light of Eschermann and Cohen-Karni as Eschermann discloses using silicon nanowire transistors “. . . .to record the extracellular potential of the spontaneous activity of cardiac muscle HL-1 cells…” (see the title, Abstract, and Figures 1 and 2), and Cohen-Karni discloses using flexible silicon nanowire transistor arrays to record electrical signals for cardiomyocyte cells (see the title, Abstract, and Figures 1 and 2). The only change that may be required in order to use biosensing method of Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Wilson on cardiac muscle tissue is to have the nanowire be silicon nanowire instead of InN nanowire.
Addressing claim 19, In Koley, the semiconductive channel member comprises an InN nanowire, not a silicon wire.
Eschermann discloses using silicon nanowire transistors “. . . .to record the extracellular potential of the spontaneous activity of cardiac muscle HL-1 cells.” See the title, Abstract, and Figures 1 and 2. Cohen-Karni discloses using flexible silicon nanowire transistor arrays to record electrical signals for cardiomyocyte cells. See the title, Abstract, and Figures 1 and 2. Barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, in light of Eschermann and Cohen-Karni to have the nanowire in Koley be a silicon nanowire instead of an InN nanowire is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)), especially if the cell whose responses to be detected is a cardiac cell instead of a neuronal cell.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Wilson as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Rajan, Eschermann, and Cohen-Karni.
Addressing claim 20, in Koley the semiconductive channel member comprises a semiconducting nanowire, not a nanoribbon. However, barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, to have the nanowire instead be a nanoribbon is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)), especially as Rajan discloses, in regard to bioFETs,
PNG
media_image1.png
528
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
140
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See Rajan page 630.
In Koley as modified by Rajan, as just discussed, the semiconductor channel member comprises an InN nanoribbon.
Eschermann discloses using silicon nanowire transistors “. . . .to record the extracellular potential of the spontaneous activity of cardiac muscle HL-1 cells.” See the title, Abstract, and Figures 1 and 2. Cohen-Karni discloses using flexible silicon nanowire transistor arrays to record electrical signals for cardiomyocyte cells. See the title, Abstract, and Figures 1 and 2. Barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, in light of Eschermann and Cohen-Karni to have the nanoribbon in Koley as modified by Rajan be a silicon nanoribbon instead of an InN nanoribbon is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)), especially if the cell whose responses to be detected is a cardiac cell instead of a neuronal cell.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
a) in claim 8 the combination of limitations requires “. . . . wherein the semiconductive channel member comprises a stack of nanoribbons. [underlining by the Examiner]”
In contrast, while it would have been obvious to have the semiconductive channel member in Koley comprise a single InN nanoribbon or silicon nanoribbon instead of an InN nanowire (see the prior art rejections of claims 5 and 7 above), there is no readily apparent benefit to having it be a stack of nanoribbons.
b) in claim 9 the combination of limitations requires “. . . . wherein the semiconductive channel member comprises a stack of nanoribbons, wherein a top layer of the stack is configured to detect the electrical cellular response and a bottom layer of the stack is configured to detect the mechanical cellular response.
In contrast, while it would have been obvious to have the semiconductive channel member in Koley comprise a single InN nanoribbon or silicon nanoribbon instead of an InN nanowire (see the prior art rejections of claims 5 and 7 above), there is no readily apparent benefit to having it be a stack of nanoribbons.
c) in claim 17 the combination of limitations requires “. . . ., further comprising identifying a cardiac event based on the detected electrical cellular response and the detected mechanical cellular response.”
In contrast, even of would have obvious to perform the method of Koley as evidenced by Luo, and in view of Wilson on cardiac tissue (see the prior art rejection of claim 16 above),if a cardiac event were to be detected it would be on the detected electrical cellular response not together with the detected mechanical cellular response (see again the prior art rejection of claim 16 above, especially with regard to Eschermann and Cohen-Karni).
d) in claim 18 the combination of limitations requires “. . . ., further comprising identifying a drug effect based on the detected electrical cellular response and the detected mechanical cellular response.”
In contrast, Koley as evidenced by Luo does not disclose identifying a drug effect. Even, if it would have been somehow obvious to do so, if done it would likely be just be based on the detected electrical cellular response alone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM 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, Luan Van can be reached on 571 272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795 November 19, 2025
1 This property is alluded to by Koley alone as Koley states, “[0034] The small diameter attainable for these InN nanowires, along with the high density and mobility of the carriers, . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]”
2 The Examiner considers surface stress (of the semiconductive channel in response to the analyte) to a mechanical response.
3 This property is alluded to by Koley alone as Koley states, “[0034] The small diameter attainable for these InN nanowires, along with the high density and mobility of the carriers, . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]”
4 nanoES – nanoelectronic scaffolds
5 This property is alluded to by Koley alone as Koley states, “[0034] The small diameter attainable for these InN nanowires, along with the high density and mobility of the carriers, . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]”
6 The Examiner considers surface stress (of the semiconductive channel in response to the analyte) to a mechanical response.