CTNF 18/325,753 CTNF 74970 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Applicants election without traverse of the invention of Group III, Claims 15 through 20, in the reply filed on April 10, 2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 1 through 14 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 10, 2026 . Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: -- 2D-Material-Based Quantum Sensor Chip with Nano-Pillars --. 06-14 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the content is not directed to the claimed invention, e.g. product (article) of a sensor chip and its structure. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 15 through 20 are 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. In Claim 15, it is unclear if the latter phrase of “a sensor chip” (lines 4-5) is referring to the earlier phrase of “a sensor chip” (line 1). Moreover, the “sensor chip” (line 1) recited in the preamble of the claim implies that all of the limitations after “comprising” (line 1), particularly “an array of nano-pillars” (line 2), are directed to the overall structure of the sensor chip. However, this is contradicted with the recitation of “the array of nano-pillars and the 2D-material are combined with a sensor chip ” (lines 4-5). Mainly because this recitation implies that the array of nano-pillars and the 2D-material are separate elements from the sensor chip. This contradiction raises a great deal of confusion and renders the claims as indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 15 and 17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Non-Patent Literature IEEE Publication to Luo et al, entitled "An Ultra-Sensitive Glucose Sensor by Using Metamaterial-Based Microfluidic Chip" (hereinafter “Luo”) . Claim 15 : Luo discloses a sensor chip comprising: an array of nano-pillars (e.g. Fig. 2a); a 2D-material (e.g. encapsulant) on top of the array of nano-pillars; and wherein the array of nano-pillars and the 2D-material are combined with a sensor chip, and wherein the array of nano-pillars and the 2D-material are combined with the sensor chip at a constriction region of the sensor chip. Claim 17 : The sensor chip of claim 15, wherein the array of nano-pillars includes an array of gold (Au) nano-pillars (see parts II and III of document) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 15, 18 and 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication 2018/02030802 to Acosta et al (hereinafter “Acosta”) . Claim 15 : Acosta discloses a sensor chip comprising: an array of nano-pillars (e.g. 102, Fig. 1, ¶ [0035]); a 2D-material (e.g. 103 or 104, Fig. 1) on top of the array of nano-pillars; and wherein the array of nano-pillars and the 2D-material are combined with the sensor (microfluidic) chip (e.g. ¶ [0024]), and wherein the array of nano-pillars and the 2D-material are combined with the sensor chip at a constriction region of the sensor chip (e.g. Fig. 1). Claim 18 : Acosta discloses the sensor chip of claim 15, wherein the 2D-material includes a plurality of ions to create deterministic [color] defects where the 2D-material stretches over the array of nano-pillars (e.g. ¶ [0032]). The 2D-material being “irradiated” has no impact on the final structure of the sensor chip. MPEP § 2113. Claim 20 : Acosta discloses the sensor chip of claim 15, wherein the sensor chip combined with the array of nano-pillars and the 2D-material is incorporated into an optical detection of magnetic resonance (ODMR) device (e.g. 100, Fig. 1, ¶ [0030]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acosta in view of U.S. Publication 2016/0177959 to Marya et al (hereinafter “Marya”) . Acosta discloses the claimed sensor chip as relied upon above in Claim 15, further including that the 2D-material includes diamond (e.g. ¶¶ [0007], [0032]). Acosta does not teach that the 2D-material includes hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN). Marya teaches that as a substitute for diamond, h-BN can be used for materials that are over nano-pillars (nanostructures) to achieve the same hardness and wear resistance as diamond (e.g. ¶ [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the 2D-material of Marya for the 2D-material of Acosta, to achieve the same hardness and wear resistance that diamond achieves . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acosta in view of U.S. Publication 2022/0109246 to Emanuelsson et al (hereinafter “Emanuelsson”) . Acosta discloses the claimed sensor chip as relied upon above in Claim 15, further including that the array of nano-pillars and the 2D-material is incorporated into a waveguide carrier (e.g. ¶ [0030]). Acosta does not teach that the waveguide carrier is a printed circuit board (PCB). Emanuelsson teaches that waveguide carriers that support nano-pillars can include PCBs (e.g. ¶¶ [0045], [0053], [0054]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the waveguide carrier of Acosta by utilizing it as a PCB, as taught by Emanuelsson, to at least support such nano-pillars . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. a) International Publication, WO 2010/025853, discloses a sensor chip (e.g. Fig. 1) that includes nanostructures (e.g. 4). b) Japanese Patent Publication, JP 2018-200233, discloses a plurality of nano-pillars (e.g. Figs. 1) having different shapes (e.g. Fig. 4A). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 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, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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. /A. DEXTER TUGBANG/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3729 Application/Control Number: 18/325,753 Page 2 Art Unit: 3729
Prosecution Insights