DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on September 30, 2025. Claims 1-8 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All objections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Some rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 regarding format issues from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant' s amendment. All other rejections are maintained.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an transistor” in line 4, which is not disclosed in the specification and is deemed to be new matter. The specification only discloses a sensor 100 including a bottom substrate layer 110 with two interdigitated electrodes 112, 114 on its top surface and an electrochemical sensing element 120 in between (Fig. 1; PGpub ¶¶30-31), but not disclose a transistor.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the doped polymer layer contains dopants that are at least one of a semiconductor dopants or ions” in lines 9-10, which is not disclosed in the specification and is deemed to be new matter. The specification only discloses the doped polymer layer 130 may comprises a semi-selective polymeric matrix 131 and a selecting compound 132 (Fig. 1A; ¶44). The selecting compound 132 is a dichromate, a phosphate, perchlorate, or a permanganate. For example, dopants, i.e. selecting compounds, may include sodium dichromate, potassium dichromate, or potassium permanganate (¶55). But the specification does not disclose “semiconductor dopants” or “ions” as recited, or give the scopes of what “semiconductor dopants” and “ions” are.
All subsequent dependent claims 2-8 are rejected due to their dependencies on rejected base claim 1.
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(s) 1-8 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "connecting an transistor to at least two interdigitated electrodes, the electrochemical sensor comprising a sensing element and single wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNT), graphene, MoS2, or WSe2" in lines 4-5. It is unclear what the electrochemical sensor constitutes. The specification a sensor 100 including a bottom substrate layer 110 with two interdigitated electrodes 112, 114 on its top surface and an electrochemical sensing element 120 in between (Fig. 1A; PGpub ¶¶30-31). The sensing elements 120 may include carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphene, and transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) such as MoS2 or MoSe2 (¶34). It is suggested to be “connecting a sensing element to at least two interdigitated electrodes, the sensing element comprising single wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNT), graphene, MoS2, or WSe2.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "exposing a doped polymer layer… to the electrochemical sensor and the at least two interdigitated electrodes” in lines 9-11. The specification disclose the sensor 100 further includes a doped polymer layer 130 that covers the electrochemical sensing element 120 between the two electrodes 112, 114 (Fig. 1A; ¶43). Thus, the doped polymer layer would be a part of the sensor and exposed to the analyte. It is suggested to be “exposing a doped polymer layer, … to the analyte and covering the sensing element.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electrochemical sensor" in lines 5 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “…at least two interdigitated electrodes in an electrochemical sensor, wherein the electrochemical sensor comprises…” in lines 4-5.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the doped polymer" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the doped polymer layer.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sensor element" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the sensing element.”
All subsequent dependent claims 2-8 are rejected for their dependencies on rejected base claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the catalyst is selected from the group consisting of Pt, Ru, and Ir” in lines 1-2, which is not disclosed in the specification. The specification only discloses the catalyst may be an acid or base (PGpub ¶¶ 12, 14, 59, 62). The specification also discloses that materials Pt, Ru, and Ir as recited can be used for electrode contacts (¶10) or electrodes (¶31). It is suggested to cancel the claim.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the highly conductive material of the sensing element of the electrochemical sensor is selected from the group consisting of Au, Pt, Ag, Cu, Ru, Ir” in lines 1-3, while claim 1 recites “the sensing element comprising a highly conductive material” in lines 7-8. These recitations seem to contradict with the disclosure in the specification. The specification discloses the sensing elements 120 may include carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphene, and transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) such as MoS2 or MoSe2 (¶34), while the electrode may be any highly conductive material, such as Pt, Ag, Cu, Ru, Ir, Au (¶ 31). Thus, it is suggested to be “wherein the at least two interdigitated electrodes is selected from the materials consisting of Au, Pt, Ag, Cu, Ru, Ir” in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ensor (US 2016/0195488), supported by Olanrewaju (Y. Olanrewaju, Chapter 16 Effect of Doping on Conjugated Polymer, Advances in Polymer Science, printed on Oct. 22, 2025 from PressBooks) as an evidence.
Regarding claim 1, Ensor teaches a method for selectively detecting an analyte that is a volatile organic compound (VOC) or a semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) (¶12), the method comprising:
operably connecting an transistor to at least two interdigitated electrodes (Fig. 1: IDE 8), the electrochemical sensor comprising a sensing element (Fig. 1: fiber mat 4; ¶ 49: the fiber mat 4 is encased between the film 19 and the substrate 14; Fig. 3B: indicating the film 19 including composite nanofiber sensing material 19a and polymer layer 19b) and single wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) (¶ 42: carbon nanotubes; ¶ 52: SWCNT), graphene, MoS2, or WSe2 and is configured to change resistance as a function of ion content, concentration, or both (¶ 47: the adsorbed chemical species swell the polymer composing the fibers or nanofibers which induces a change in the impedance of the composite nanofiber; for example, resistance variation for the entire array of sensing materials), the sensing element comprising a highly conductive material (¶ 50: intrinsically conducting polymers);
exposing a doped polymer layer (¶ 50: n or p doped intrinsically conducting polymer might be used), wherein the doped polymer layer contains dopants that are at least one of a semiconductor dopants or ions (as evidenced by Olanrewaju, doping inherently semiconducting conjugate polymers (p. 2, para. 1), e.g., P-type doping, using p-type dopants such like ferric chloride (FeCl3) (p. 6, para. 2); here ferric chloride has ions Fe(III)), to the electrochemical sensor and the at least two interdigitated electrodes (Fig. 1-2; ¶ 45: interdigitated electrode 8; here the interdigitated electrode 8 includes two fingers), the doped polymer comprising a semi-selective polymer matrix (¶ 50: n or p doped intrinsically conducting polymer; ¶ 59: nanofibers include poly(acrylic acid), poly(vinylpyrrolidone); here since the polymer matrix made of PAA or PVP (poly(acrylic acid) or poly(vinylpyrrolidone)), the same material as disclosed in the specification (PGpub ¶ 45), and thus the polymer matrix of the prior art must be semi-selective as recited) configured to react with the analyte (¶ 112: chemical reactants are included in the nanofibers that can react with the sorbed VOCs in the fiber);
introducing a fluid to the doped polymer layer (Fig. 6B: 650; ¶ 106: upon exposure of the fibers to the chemical species) such that the analyte, if present, reacts with or is attracted to the semi-selective polymer matrix (¶ 112: chemical reactants are included in the nanofibers that can react with the sorbed VOCs in the fiber), thereby causing a change in electrical resistance due to ion content, concentration, or both of the electrochemical sensor to change (¶ 106: a change in electrical impedance (e.g., capacitance, inductance, or resistance) between spatially separated electrodes connected to a plurality of fibers upon exposure of the fibers to the chemical species);
with the at least two interdigitated electrodes, measuring a resistance across the sensor element (¶ 106: a change in electrical impedance (e.g., capacitance, inductance, or resistance) between spatially separated electrodes connected to a plurality of fibers upon exposure of the fibers to the chemical species); and
based on the measured electrical resistance, determining whether the analyte was in the fluid (¶ 15: to identify the chemical species based on a change in the electrical impedance).
Further, the designation “such that the analyte, if present, reacts with or is attracted to the semi-selective polymer matrix, thereby causing a change in electrical resistance due to ion content, concentration, or both of the electrochemical sensor to change” does not further limit the method as claimed because it is the intended result of the step “introducing a fluid to the doped polymer layer.” Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. Here, this designation is not given patentable weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. MPEP 2111.04.
Regarding claim 5, Ensor teaches wherein the semi-selective polymer matrix comprises a water-soluble polymer (¶ 56: poly(acrylic acid), which is a water-soluble polymer).
Regarding claim 6, Ensor teaches wherein the semi-selective polymer matrix comprises a polymer formed using acrylic acid as a monomer (¶ 56: poly(acrylic acid), which uses acrylic acid as a monomer).
Regarding claim 7, Ensor teaches the electrode of the electrochemical sensor is selected from the group consisting of Au, Pt, Ag, Cu, Ru, Ir (¶ 53: gold is a suitable electrode material).
Regarding claim 8, Ensor teaches comparing the measured resistance to a predetermined threshold before determining whether the analyte was in the fluid (Fig. 7A; ¶ 109: these results indicate that a response for the nanofiber sensor, from baseline to resistance increase).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ensor in view of Cha (US 2019/0391107).
Regarding claims 2-3, Ensor discloses all limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim 1. Ensor does not explicitly disclose wherein the doped polymer further comprises a catalyst configured to promote the reaction between the analyte and the semi-selective polymer matrix (claim 2) or wherein the catalyst is a base having a pH greater than or equal to 10 (claim 3).
However, Cha teaches a gas sensor ([0030]) including an insulation substrate ([0031] lines 1-2), and a positive electrode and a negative electrode attached to the insulation substrate ([0031] lines 2-4), wherein surfaces of the electrodes and a portion of the insulation substrate between electrodes are coated with hygroscopic salt ([0031] lines 4-8). The term “a hygroscopic salt” refers to a salt having a property of absorbing moisture in the air ([0034] lines 3-5), which decreases a temperature dependency of a sensor and improves sensing sensitivity ([0035] lines 1-2). The “hygroscopic salt” may include a hydroxide, in more detail, may include sodium hydroxide ([0036] lines 1-3, 5). Examiner notes here that since the prior art uses the same material, sodium hydroxide, as disclosed in the specification (PGpub, ¶ 60), and thus it has the same property, i.e., a base with a pH greater than or equal to 10 (¶ 59).
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 Ensor by incorporating a hydroscopic salt, e.g., a catalyst (for claim 2) that is a base having a pH greater than or equal to 10 (for claim 3), as taught by Cha into the semi-selective polymeric matrix because it would decrease the temperature dependency of a gas sensor and improve sensing sensitivity ([0035] lines 1-2).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ensor (US 2016/0195488) in view of Cha, and further in view of Chaum (US 2018/0271413).
Regarding claim 4, Ensor discloses all limitations of claim 2 as applied to claim 2. Ensor further discloses the electrode is made of gold (¶ 53: gold Au is a suitable electrode material), but fails to teach the catalyst is selected from the group consisting of Pt, Ru, and Ir.
However, Chaum teaches an electrochemical sensor ([0201] line 1) including reference electrode, counter electrode and working electrode can be formed out of a suitable conductive material including silver, gold, ruthenium (Ru) or combinations thereof ([0203] lines 1-5).
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 Ensor by substituting Au with Ru for the electrode material as taught by Chaum because both Ag and Ru are suitable materials for electrodes of electrochemical sensors. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(B). Moreover, the suggestion for substituting Ag with Ru would have been that they are suitable materials and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues Pt, Ru and Ir are well known catalysts for the types of reactions and asserts they are adequately discloses (p. 4). This argument is unpersuasive because the specification explicitly discloses the catalyst may be an acid or base (PGpub ¶12), without mentioning any metals, such as Pt, Ru, Ir. Thus, it fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant argues the amendments overcome the rejections as set forth in previous Office action (p. 5), but fails to provide any evidence or argument for its assertion. Examiner notes that the amendments raise new matter that the specification as filed does not disclose.
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 extension fee 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 CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795