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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 02/23/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 10/2023/0024528 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, lines 1-2, it appears “each cavity the plurality” should read “each cavity of the plurality”; and
In claim 6, line 2, it appears “layers the plurality” should read “layers of the plurality”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohammadi et al. (US 2015/0083597 A1; hereinafter, “Mohammadi”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-11 and 13-20
re claim 1, Mohammadi discloses an electrode, comprising:
at least one of a single unit layer 420/M2/408 (Fig. 4 and [0022])
wherein each of the single unit layer 420/M2/408 or or Note: The current claim essentially requires only a single unit layer comprising a single cavity; furthermore, all subsequent dependent claims that do not explicitly require (i) a plurality of stacked unit layers or (ii) a plurality of cavities will not be deemed to patentably distinguish over an electrode comprising a single unit layer comprising a single cavity because the current independent claim is in the alternative form, “or”);
re claim 2, the electrode of claim 1, wherein the [cavity is] at least one of nanocavities and microcavities ([0014], i.e., the cavity 418 is a nanochannel);
re claim 4, the electrode of claim 1, wherein, for each of the single unit layer 420/M2/408 [cavity] 418 (Fig. 4 and [0022]) [is] disposed between an upper surface 420 of the unit layer and a lower surface 408 of the unit layer facing the upper surface of the single unit layer;
re claim 5, the electrode of claim 1, (i.e., because claim 1 is in alternative form “or”, the current claim does not include any patentably distinguishing structure when there is only a single cavity as required by claim 1);
re claim 6, the electrode of claim 1, wherein the unit layer of the single unit layer 420/M2/408 or
re claim 7, the electrode of claim_6 (Note: A space is required before “6”) wherein the first insulating layer 420 and the second insulating layer 408 respectively comprise
insulating materials [0022], and
wherein the [cavity] 418 of the single unit layer 420/M2/408 or [is] formed in at least one or more portions of the metal layer M2 (Fig. 4), between the metal layer and the first insulating layer, or between the metal layer and the second insulating layer;
re claim 8, the electrode of claim 7, wherein at least one of a single metal layer M2 (Fig. 4)
re claim 9, the electrode of claim 1, (i.e., because claim 1 is in alternative form “or”, the current claim does not include any patentably distinguishing structure when there is only a single unit layer as required by claim 1);
re claim 10, the electrode of claim 1, (i.e., because claim 1 is in alternative form “or”, the current claim does not include any patentably distinguishing structure when there is only a single unit layer as required by claim 1);
re claim 11, the electrode of claim 1, (i.e., because claim 1 is in alternative form “or”, the current claim does not include any patentably distinguishing structure when there is only a single unit layer as required by claim 1);
re claim 13, the electrode of claim 1, (i.e., because claim 1 is in alternative form “or”, the current claim does not include any patentably distinguishing structure when there is only a single unit layer as required by claim 1);
re claim 14, the electrode of claim 13, (i.e., because claim 1 is in alternative form “or”, the current claim does not include any patentably distinguishing structure when there is only a single unit layer as required by claim 1);
re claim 15, the electrode of claim 13, (i.e., because claim 1 is in alternative form “or”, the current claim does not include any patentably distinguishing structure when there is only a single unit layer as required by claim 1);
re claim 16, the electrode of claim 13, further comprising:
a single groove 422 (Fig. 4 and [0022]) or a plurality of grooves 422 disposed with an open side (e.g., a top side as viewed in Fig. 4),
wherein the groove 422 or each of the plurality of grooves comprises a region (e.g., opening space defined by layer 420 in Fig. 4), where at least a portion of the metal layer M2 protrudes into the groove 422 (Fig. 4) or the plurality of grooves, and
wherein the region, where at least a portion of the metal layer M2 protrudes into the groove 422 or the plurality of grooves, has a stepped structure (e.g., M2 has a step shape that protrudes from the left side of Fig. 4 and ends at the cavity 418 in Fig. 4), in which a protruding length i.e., a top surface and a bottom surface of M2 has a same protruding length from the left side of Fig. 4, e.g., the cavity 418 has a vertical sidewall);
re claim 17, the electrode of claim 16, wherein the single cavity 418 (Fig. 4) or the plurality of cavities are provided in a region close to the groove 422 or the plurality of grooves, or
re claim 18, the electrode of claim 17, wherein the single cavity 418 (Fig. 4) or the plurality of cavities formed between the upper surface 420 of the unit layer 420/M2/408 and the lower surface 408 of the unit layer, facing the upper surface 420, are exposed to the inner surface of the groove 422 (Fig. 4)( or the plurality of grooves;
re claim 19, A device, wherein a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) chip and the electrode of claim 1 are integrated (Fig. 4 and [0014, 0025]); and
re claim 20, the device of claim 19, wherein the device is monolithically integrated or
heterogeneously integrated (Fig. 4 and [0014, 0025]).
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-11 and 13-20 are anticipated by Mohammadi.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammadi in view of Ushio et al. (US 2018/0209936 A1; hereinafter, “Ushio”).
Regarding claim 3:
Mohammadi anticipates claim 1 and discloses the cavity 418 is a nanochannel but does not disclose a specific range in height or length of the cavity. However, it is noted Mohammadi is directed to biomolecular detection (e.g., see title).
Ushio teaches a biological sample 52 [0096] often has a size ranging from 50µm to 300µm (i.e., 0.05mm to 0.3mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically incorporate, into Mohammadi, a cavity with a length of 1nm to 1 millimeter (mm) because Ushio teaches biological samples have sizes falling within such a length (e.g., a size of 0.05 mm to 0.3 mm).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammadi in view of Lu et al. (US 2005/0116263 A1; hereinafter, “Lu”).
Regarding claim 12:
Mohammadi anticipates claim 1 but does not disclose the unit layer further comprises at least one or more active layers of a piezoelectric layer, a magnetoelectric layer, or a magnetostrictive layer.
Lu teaches a piezoelectric layer allows multimodal operation for biosensors [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mohammadi by incorporating a piezoelectric layer because Lu teaches such layers allow multimodal operation for biosensors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights