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 Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on December 29, 2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “ a gate layer disposed at a lower portion and/or an upper portion of the substrate, or the upper portion of the target coupling layer , ” as recited in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 1, 3, 4 and 9 -12 are objected to because of the following informalities: “ nano tube” should read “nanotube” (claim 1, line 15; claim 9, line 15; claim 10, line 4); “In-GA-Zn” should read “In-Ga-Zn” (claim 3, line 2); “3-Aminopropyltriehoxysilane” should read “3-Aminopropyltriethoxysilane” (claim 4, lines 2-3); “ is covalent bonding” should read “includes covalent bonding” (claim 4, lines 3-4) ; “dehydrate” should read “dihydrate” (claim 11, line 4 and claim 12, line 5). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the metal oxide precursor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner observes that claim 10 recites “a metal oxide precursor” in line 3. Therefore, it is suggested that the dependency of claim 11 be changed from claim 9 to claim 10. For examination purposes, claim 11 will be treated as depending from claim 10 rather than from claim 9. Correction is respectfully requested. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the nitrate indium hydrate" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner observes that claim 11 recites “nitrate indium hydrate" in line 3. Therefore, it is suggested that the dependency of claim 12 be changed from claim 10 to claim 11. For examination purposes, claim 12 will be treated as depending from claim 11 rather than from claim 10. Correction is respectfully requested. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the nitrate gallium hydrate" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner observes that claim 11 recites “nitrate gallium hydrate" in line 3. Therefore, it is suggested that the dependency of claim 12 be changed from claim 10 to claim 11. For examination purposes, claim 12 will be treated as depending from claim 11 rather than from claim 10. Correction is respectfully requested. Claim 12 recites the limitation " the zinc acetate dehydrate " in lines 4-5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner observes that claim 11 recites “zinc acetate dehydrate " in line 4. Therefore, it is suggested that the dependency of claim 12 be changed from claim 10 to claim 11. For examination purposes, claim 12 will be treated as depending from claim 11 rather than from claim 10. Correction is respectfully requested. 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. Claim (s) 1-3 and 5-14, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20220078168A (hereinafter “Park”) in view of “Thin film transistors by solution-based indium gallium zinc oxide/carbon nanotubes blend” (Thin Solid Films 517 (2009) 4011-4014, hereinafter “Lee”). Regarding claim 1 , Park discloses in Fig. 1 and related text a semiconductor-based DNA sensor ([0001] of the attached English machine translation) comprising: a first electrode (20; [0040]) and a second electrode (30; [0040]) disposed on a substrate (10; [0040]) to be spaced apart from each other; a channel layer (40; [0040]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode; a target coupling layer (50; [0040]) disposed on the channel layer, and including probe DNA detecting target DNA through a hybridization reaction ([0020]) ; a passivation layer (60; [0040]) selectively exposing an upper portion of the target coupling layer; and a gate layer ( in contact with the electrolyte layer 70, but not illustrated in Fig. 1; [0041]) disposed at a lower portion and/or an upper portion of the substrate, or the upper portion of the target coupling layer , wherein the channel layer includes a metal oxide ([0050] and [0054]). Park does not disclose the channel layer includes the metal oxide and a carbon nano tube. Lee teaches in Fig. 1 and related text the channel layer (“Active layer (IGZO/SWNTs)”) includes the metal oxide and a carbon nano tube (Abstract, lines 1-2). Park and Lee are analogous art because they both are directed to thin film transistors and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Park with the specified features of Lee because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the channel layer to include the metal oxide and a carbon nano tube , as taught by Lee, in order to use the carbon nano tube as a carrier transport rod to improve the electrical performance of the channel of the thin film transistor (Lee: Introduction, lines 15-23), specifically to increase the free carrier concentration, increase the mobility, and decrease the resistivity (Lee: Results and discussion, second paragraph and Table 1). Regarding claim 2 , Park in view of Lee disclose the metal oxide includes indium, gallium, and zinc (Park: [0050]). Regarding claim 3 , Park in view of Lee disclose the metal oxide includes In-G a -Zn oxide (Park: [0050]). Regarding claim 5 , Park in view of Lee disclose each of the first electrode and the second electrode is independently selected from the group consisting of Au, Zr, Ti, Fe, Ni, Cr, Pt, and combinations thereof (Park: [0047]). Regarding claim 6 , Park in view of Lee disclose an electrolyte layer (Park: 70; Fig. 1; [0075]) disposed at the upper portion of the target coupling layer. Regarding claim 7 , Park in view of Lee disclose the gate layer is disposed on the electrolyte layer (Park: [0041] ) , or disposed at the lower portion and/or the upper portion of the substrate. Regarding claim 8 , Park in view of Lee disclose the electrolyte layer includes a layer selected from the group consisting of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), NaC l , KC l , KBr, and combinations thereof (Park: [0076]). Regarding claim 9 , Park discloses in Fig. 1 and related text a manufacturing method of a semiconductor-based DNA sensor ([0001]) , comprising: disposing a first electrode (20; [0046]) and a second electrode (30; [0046]) on a substrate (10; [0046]) to be spaced apart from each other; forming a channel layer (40; [0054]) between the first electrode and the second electrode; forming a passivation layer (60; [0056] -[ 0058]) on the first electrode and the second electrode ; forming a target coupling layer (50; [0020] and [00 6 0]) capable of detecting target DNA on the channel layer; and disposing a gate layer (in contact with the electrolyte layer 70, but not illustrated in Fig. 1; [0041]) at a lower portion and/or an upper portion of the substrate, or an upper portion of the target coupling layer , wherein the channel layer includes a metal oxide ([0050] and [0054]). Park does not disclose the channel layer includes the metal oxide and a carbon nano tube. Lee teaches in Fig. 1 and related text the channel layer (“Active layer (IGZO/SWNTs)”) includes the metal oxide and a carbon nano tube (Abstract, lines 1-2). Park and Lee are analogous art because they both are directed to thin film transistors and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Park with the specified features of Lee because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the channel layer to include the metal oxide and a carbon nano tube , as taught by Lee, in order to use the carbon nano tube as a carrier transport rod to improve the electrical performance of the channel of the thin film transistor (Lee: Introduction, lines 15-23), specifically to increase the free carrier concentration, increase the mobility, and decrease the resistivity (Lee: Results and discussion, second paragraph and Table 1). Regarding claim 10 , Park in view of Lee disclose the manufacturing method of a semiconductor-based DNA sensor of claim 9. Park does not disclose the forming of the channel layer includes applying a solution including a metal oxide precursor and the carbon nano tube, and curing the solution. Lee teaches in Fig. 1 and related text the forming of the channel layer (“Active layer (IGZO/SWNTs)”) includes applying a solution including a metal oxide precursor and the carbon nano tube, and curing the solution (Experimental details, lines 6-23) . Park and Lee are analogous art because they both are directed to thin film transistors and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Park in view of Lee with the specified features of Lee because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the channel layer by applying a solution including a metal oxide precursor and the carbon nano tube, and curing the solution , as taught by Lee, in order to use the carbon nano tube as a carrier transport rod to improve the electrical performance of the channel of the thin film transistor (Lee: Introduction, lines 15-23), specifically to increase the free carrier concentration, increase the mobility, and decrease the resistivity (Lee: Results and discussion, second paragraph and Table 1). Regarding claim 11 , Park in view of Lee disclose the metal oxide precursor includes nitrate indium hydrate ( In( NO 3 ) 3 ·x(H 2 O)), nitrate gallium hydrate (Ga(NO 3 ) 3 ·x(H 2 O)), and zinc acetate dehydrate (Zn(CH 3 COO) 2 ·2(H 2 O)) (Park: [0051]). Regarding claim 1 2 , Park in view of Lee disclose the solution is a solution which is dissolved in a 2-methoxyethanol solvent (Park: [0051]). Park in view of Lee do not disclose the nitrate indium hydrate, the nitrate gallium hydrate, and the zinc acetate dehydrate have a molar ratio of 0.1 : 0.15 : 0.0275. Park discloses a molar ratio of 0.085 : 0.0125 : 0.0275 ([0051]). The most significant difference between Park’s disclosed molar ratio and the claimed molar ratio is the proportion of gallium. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the nitrate indium hydrate, the nitrate gallium hydrate, and the zinc acetate dehydrate to have a molar ratio of 0.1 : 0.15 : 0.0275 in order to optimize the electrical characteristics of the indium-gallium-zinc oxide channel (e.g., g allium (Ga) content in IGZO acts as a stabilizer that increases electrical stability and reduces off-current by suppressing oxygen vacancies (carrier generators) ). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Regarding claim 1 3 , Park in view of Lee disclose the forming of the target coupling layer include hydrophilically treating an upper portion of the channel layer (Park: [0063]) , applying amino silane to the upper portion of the channel layer (Park: [0064]) , and forming mutual covalent bonding by silanization -reacting phosphate of probe DNA and the amino silane (Park: [0065]-[0066]). Regarding claim 1 4 , Park in view of Lee disclose the disposing of the gate layer includes forming an electrolyte layer (Park: 70; Fig. 1; [0075]) at the upper portion of the target coupling layer, and disposing the gate layer on the electrolyte layer (Park: [0041]) , or includes disposing the gate layer at the lower portion and/or the upper portion of the substrate. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2004/0238379 A1 (hereinafter “Lindsay”) . Regarding claim 4 , Park in view of Lee disclose the semiconductor-based DNA sensor of claim 1, wherein the target coupling layer includes 3-Aminopropyltriehoxysilane (APTES) and the probe DNA (Park: [0064] -[ 0066]). Park discloses a terminal phosphate of the probe DNA forms one side of a covalent bond. Park in view of Lee do not explicitly disclose an amino group of the APTES forms the other side of the covalent bond. Lindsay teaches in Fig. 4 and related text an amino group (amine , NH 2 ) of the APTES forms the other side of the covalent bond ([0029]). Park, Lee and Lindsay are analogous art because they each are directed to field effect transistors and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Park in view of Lee with the specified features of Lindsay because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the other side of the covalent bond by an amino group of the APTES, as taught by Lindsay, in order to immobilize the probe DNA on the channel layer of the semiconductor-based DNA sensor. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PETER M ALBRECHT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7813 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (CT) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lynne Gurley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1670 . 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. /PETER M ALBRECHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811