DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Summary
This Office Correspondence is based on the Amendment filed with the Office on 20 November 2025, regarding the Collins, et al. application.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 17-19 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a published paper to T.-S. Bae, et al. (“Effects of carbon structure orientation on the performance of glucose sensors fabricated from electrospun carbon fibers”, Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 358(3): p. 544-549, Feb 2012; hereinafter, “Bae”) in view of a published paper by M. Culebras, et al. (“Bio-derived Carbon Nanofibres from Lignin as High-Performance Li-Ion Anode Materials”, ChemSusChem, 12(19): p. 4516-4521, Oct. 2019; hereinafter, “Culebras”).
Regarding claim 1, Bae discloses an electrospun carbon fiber electrode (Abstract; which reads on the instantly claimed, “[a] method of forming an electrode for a sensor device”). Bae teaches a screen-printed electrode (2.5. Preparation of the glucose sensor electrode, p. 545; which reads on “a substrate”). Further, Bae teaches four polymer solutions were prepared with various weight ratios of PAN and silica, wherein the solutions were spun with an electrospinning apparatus (2.2. Preparation of silica-embedded PAN-based films by electrospinning, p. 545; reading on; reading on “forming fibres … ), the resultant fibers being carbonized at high temperature (2.4. Heat treatment, p. 545; which reads on “carbonising the fibers formed in step a) to provide a carbon nanofibre layer”). Bae further teaches immobilization of glucose oxidase onto the carbon nanofibers (Figure 6), wherein the nanofibers are produced as mesoporous structures beneficial for effective immobilization of glucose oxidase (3.1. Textural properties of porous carbon materials, p. 545; which reads on “immobilising an enzyme on the carbon nanofibre layer”).
While Bae teaches forming carbon nanofibers from a combination of PAN and silica, Bae does not teach the fibers comprising lignin and a second polymer material, wherein the second polymeric material is immiscible with lignin.
However, Culebras discloses prepared carbon nanofibres from lignin and polylactic acid (PLA) blends for use as electrode material (Abstract).
At the time of the filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the lignin/PLA of Culebras for the PAN/silica formation material of the carbon nanofibres as PAN is a petroleum-based polymer with serious drawbacks such as high production cost and environmental issues associated with high CO2 emissions and solvent usage during synthesis, and lignin is considered a viable sustainable alternative to PAN as a carbon fibre precursor (Culebras, 1st ¶, Introduction, p. 4516).
Regarding claim 2, Culebras teaches to promote lignin crosslinking and avoid its melting, methylene diphenyl diiso cyanate (MDI) was used as a crosslinking agent during stabilisation immediately prior to carbonisation (2nd ¶, Introduction, p. 4516-4517).
Regarding claim 3, Culebras teaches lignin/PLA in ratios of 50:50 and 70:30 (2nd ¶, Results and Discussion, p. 4517).
Regarding claim 4, Culebras teaches polylactic acid (Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Bae teaches a screen-printed electrode (2.5. Preparation of the glucose sensor electrode, p. 545).
Regarding claim 6, Culebras teaches the carbon nanofibers were stabilised in air as follows: the temperature was ramped from 25 to 150 °C at 1 °C min-1 and kept at 150 °C for 14 h. Then, the temperature was raised from 150 to 200 °C at 1°C min-1, kept at 200 °C for 1 h, ramped again from 200°C to 250 °C at 1°C min-1 and kept at 250°C for 1 h (Preparation of CNFs, p. 4520).
Regarding claim 7, Culebras teaches nanofibres were finally carbonised by using a tubular furnace heating from room temperature to 900°C at 10°C min-1 under nitrogen flow and kept at 900°C for 30 min (Preparation of CNFs, p. 4520).
Regarding claim 8, Culebras teaches porosity with BET experiments showing lignin/PLA carbon nanofibers at 670 m2 g-1 (6th ¶, Results and Discussion, p. 4519).
Regarding claim 9, Bae further teaches immobilization of glucose oxidase onto the carbon nanofibers (Figure 6), wherein the nanofibers are produced as mesoporous structures beneficial for effective immobilization of glucose oxidase (3.1. Textural properties of porous carbon materials, p. 545).
Regarding claim 10, Bae discloses an electrospun carbon fiber electrode (Abstract; which reads on the instantly claimed, “[a]n electrode for a sensor device”). Bae teaches a screen-printed electrode (2.5. Preparation of the glucose sensor electrode, p. 545; which reads on “a substrate”). Bae teaches four polymer solutions were prepared with various weight ratios of PAN and silica, wherein the solutions were spun with an electrospinning apparatus (2.2. Preparation of silica-embedded PAN-based films by electrospinning, p. 545), the resultant fibers being carbonized at high temperature (2.4. Heat treatment, p. 545; which reads on “a carbon nanofibre layer”). Bae further teaches immobilization of glucose oxidase onto the carbon nanofibers (Figure 6), wherein the nanofibers are produced as mesoporous structures beneficial for effective immobilization of glucose oxidase (3.1. Textural properties of porous carbon materials, p. 545; which reads on “an enzyme immobilised on the carbon nanofibre layer, wherein the carbon nanofibre layer comprises a mesoporous carbon nanofibers and the enzyme is immobilised in the pores of the mesoporous carbon nanofibers”).
While Bae teaches forming carbon nanofibers from a combination of PAN and silica, Bae does not teach the fibers comprising lignin and a second polymer material, wherein the second polymeric material is immiscible with lignin.
However, Culebras discloses prepared carbon nanofibres from lignin and polylactic acid (PLA) blends for use as electrode material (Abstract).
At the time of the filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the lignin/PLA of Culebras for the PAN/silica formation material of the carbon nanofibres as PAN is a petroleum-based polymer with serious drawbacks such as high production cost and environmental issues associated with high CO2 emissions and solvent usage during synthesis, and lignin is considered a viable sustainable alternative to PAN as a carbon fibre precursor (Culebras, 1st ¶, Introduction, p. 4516).
Regarding claim 11, Bae teaches four polymer solutions were prepared with various weight ratios of PAN and secondary material, wherein the solutions were spun with an electrospinning apparatus (2.2. Preparation of silica-embedded PAN-based films by electrospinning, p. 545).
Regarding claim 12, Bae states methods of enzyme immobilization may include cross-linking of polymers (1st ¶, 1. Introduction, p. 544).
Regarding claim 13, Bae teaches glucose oxidase (2.1. Materials, p. 544-545).
Regarding claim 14, Bae teaches glucose-sensing measurements were conducted by cyclic voltammetry and amperometric methods using a computer-controlled potentiostat/galvanostat, wherein the resultant electrode sensitivity for glucose was tested (2.6. Glucose sensing measurements, p. 545).
Regarding claim 17, Bae teaches the shared limitations of instant claim 10, as outlined above. Bae further teaches glucose-sensing measurements were conducted by cyclic voltammetry and amperometric methods using a computer-controlled potentiostat/galvanostat, wherein the resultant electrode sensitivity for glucose was tested (2.6. Glucose sensing measurements, p. 545; Figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, Bae teaches glucose oxidase (2.1. Materials, p. 544-545), and the measurement of glucose response (Figure 3).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Culebras as applied to claim1 and 5 above, and further in view of a published paper to P. Masawat, et al. (“The determination of tetracycline residues in food using a disposable screen-printed gold electrode”, Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 124(1): p. 127-132, Jun 2007; hereinafter, “Masawat”).
Regarding claim 19, Bae and Culebras teach the limitations of instant claims 1 and 5, as outlined above.
Bae teaches a screen-printed electrode, but does not explicitly teach gold.
However, Masawat disclose a gold screen-printed electrode for electrochemical determinations (Abstract).
At the time of the filing of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the screen-printed gold electrode of Masawat as the electrode material in the device resulting from modifying Bae in view of the teachings of Culebras as it would be selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 November 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant seeming argues the Culebras is non-analogous art, to which a skilled person would not have found obvious to use the teachings found therein. In response to applicant's argument that Culebras is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Culebras is fundamental in teaching liginin and PLA as electrode material that has the advantage that lignin is a viable sustainable alternative to the PAN as a carbon fiber precursor for electrode production. That Culebras does not recite any immobilization of enzymes and performance of the material as an enzyme-based sensor is moot, as the Bae reference is cited as teaching limitations related enzyme immobilization and sensor utilization.
Interview with the Examiner
If at any point during the prosecution it is believe an interview with the Examiner would further the prosecution of an application, please consider this option.
The Automated Interview Request form (AIR) is available to request an interview to be scheduled with the Examiner. First, an authorization for internet communications regarding the case should be filed prior or with an AIR online request.
The internet communication authorization form (SB/0439), which authorizes or withdraws authorization for internet-based communication (e.g., video conferencing, email, etc.) for the application must be signed by the applicant or the attorney/agent for applicant. The form can be found at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
The AIR form can be filled out online, and is automatically forwarded to the Examiner, who will call to confirm a requested time and date, or set up a mutually convenient time for the interview. The form can be found at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html
The Examiner encourages, but does not require, interviews by the USPTO Microsoft Teams video conferencing. This system allows for file-sharing along audio conferencing. Microsoft Teams can be used as an internet browser add-on in Microsoft IE, Google Chrome, or Mozilla Foxfire, or as a temporary Java-based application on these browsers. Steps for joining an Examiner setup Microsoft Teams can be found at the USPTO website:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice#step3
Additionally, a blank email to the Examiner at the time of a telephonic interview can be used for a reply to easily allow for Microsoft Teams communication. Please note, policy guidelines regarding Internet communications are detailed at MPEP §500-502.3, and office policy regarding interviews are detailed at MPEP §713.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JOHN C BALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5119. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F, 9 am - 5:30 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, 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.
/J. Christopher Ball/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
15 December 2025