DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on July 8, 2026. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claim 15 is canceled. Claims 13 is withdrawn. A final action on the merits of claims 1-12 and 14 is as follows.
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 . 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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 6-7, 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (hereinafter ‘Lee’, U.S. PGPub. No. 2021/0228864), and further in view of Yamakaji et al. (hereinafter ‘Yamakaji’, U.S. PGPub. No. 2013/0164619).
In regards to independent claim 1 and claims 2-3, 5-7, and 9-12, Lee discloses an electrode (graphene-coated Pt (G-Pt) microelectrodes in Figs. 1A and 1B, [0020]) comprising an electrode base material ([0021]: electrodes formed entirely of platinum, thus meeting claims 10 and 11), a carbon material ([0021]: a protective layer comprising of graphene monolayer disposed on the platinum electrodes, thus meeting claim 3).
However, Lee is silent as to an anchoring layer located between the electrode base material and the carbon material and comprising an anchoring structure having a chain of at least eight consecutive covalently bonded atoms and at least part of the anchoring layer is a monolayer.
Yamakaji teaches providing a graphene oxide layer (positive electrode active material layer 201 in Fig. 1A) anchored onto a metal base layer (current collector 101; [0060]: “as the current collector, a material having high conductivity… can be used”). The examiner notes that while Yamakaji is directed to a battery, it is still considered an analogous art because Yamakaji is trying to solve the same problem as the Applicant of improving adhesion between a graphene material onto a metal base layer (instant specification, [0008]: “also for these graphene based (coating) materials, further improvement is desired, in particular an improved adhesion of films based on graphene oxide to metallic electrode base materials”). Specifically, Yamakaji teaches providing an anchor layer over the metal base layer ([0086]: “an anchor coat layer may be provided over the current collector before the positive electrode active material layer is formed over the current collector”) to improve adhesion between the graphene oxide layer (e.g. positive electrode active material layer) and the metal base layer (e.g. current collector). Yamakaji further teaches that the anchor layer is formed from a polymer, one or more of polyvinylidene difluoride, polyimide, carboxymethyl cellulose, and sodium polyacrylate and conductive additive such as graphene, reduced graphene oxide and so forth (note that a graphene or graphene oxide is a monolayer, thus meeting claim 3). Yamakaji further teaches that the graphene oxide layer is formed from a graphene oxide and a polymer having a functional group as a side chain so that the functional groups of graphene oxide layer (e.g. positive electrode active material layer) react and form covalent bonds with the anchor layer ([0176]-[0177], thus meeting claim 6). Given that Lee is silent as to enhancing adhesion between the graphene to the platinum microelectrode layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate an anchor layer on the platinum microelectrode layer prior to introducing the graphene layer as taught by Yamakaji to improve adhesion of the graphene to the platinum microelectrodes ([0086]). The examiner notes that the anchor layer which is a binder polymer inherently contains long covalent chains because a polymer is made of repeating units and the backbone alone already has many consecutive covalently bonded atoms, thus meeting claim 2.
The modified electrode provides for a distal end of the anchoring structure (of the anchoring layer) of Yamakaji that is covalently bound to the carbon material (graphene) of Lee. Specifically, at an graphene-anchor interface, oxygen atom (from graphene oxide of the conductive additive forming the anchor coating layer) or nitrogen atom (from the polymer forming the anchor coating layer) of the functional groups as listed in paragraph [0054] of Yamakaji contain hetero atoms (Ap) and the oxygen and/or nitrogen interact with either oxygen or nitrogen (Y) of the functionalized graphene layer, thus meeting claims 6 and 7.
The modified electrode provides for a proximal end of an anchoring structure (of the anchoring layer) of Yamakaji that is bound to the electrode base material (platinum) of Lee. Specifically, at an platinum-anchor interface, oxygen atom or nitrogen atom from functional groups as listed in paragraph [0054] of Yamakaji contain hetero atoms (Ap) such as oxygen and/or nitrogen which interact with the surface of the platinum, which is an atom of the electrode base material (Y), thus meeting claims 9 and 12.
In regards to claim 4, Lee/Yamakaji combination discloses that the carbon material is a graphene and does not explicitly disclose that the graphene is a graphene oxide or a reduced graphene oxide. However, Yamakaji teaches the equivalence of various carbon materials including carbon black, graphene, reduced graphene oxide, and a carbon nanotube ([0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide graphene oxide or reduced graphene oxide as the carbon material since the equivalence of graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide for their use as conductive material and the selection of any one of these known equivalents as an electrical conductor would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to claim 14, Lee/Yamakaji combination discloses an electrode carrier ([0037]: “arrays of platinum microelectrodes were fabricated on 500 nm film of silicon oxide grown by thermal oxidation of a silicon wafer, though various other substrate materials may be used, such as but not limited to silicon, silicon nitride, parylene, polyimide, etc.”) for detecting, receiving and/or inducing physiological electrical signals ([0020]: neurostimulation performed with a neurostimulation device), wherein the electrode carrier comprises an electrode according to claim 1 (see the rejection claim 1 above; the substrate material comprises the array of platinum microelectrodes as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yamakaji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sommer et al. (hereinafter ‘Sommer’, U.S. PGPub. No. 2016/0141580).
In regards to claim 5, Lee/Yamakaji combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim in claim 1 and discussed above.
However, Lee/Yamakaji combination does not disclose wherein the anchoring structure comprises a polyalkylene oxide chain.
Sommer teaches a conductive polymer comprising a binder material and electrically conductive materials ([0075]) similar to Yamakaji. Specifically, Sommer teaches a list of common binder materials including polyvinylidene difluoride (PVdf), polyimide, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and polyethylene oxide (PEO) among other materials ([0075]). Note that polyethylene oxide (PEO) or polyethylene glycol (PEG) are examples of polyalkylene oxide chain. Given that Lee/Yamakaji combination discloses the anchoring structure is formed from a polymer comprising a binder formed from one or more of polyvinylidene difluoride, polyimide, carboxymethyl cellulose, and sodium polyacrylate ([0022]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate polyethylene oxide into the binder as taught by Sommer, as using one or more of the known binder materials to form a conductive polymer involves routine skill in the art and a predictable result of improving formation, adhesion and mechanical stability of the conductive polymer would ensue.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yamakaji as applied to claim 7/6/1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (hereinafter ‘Park’, NPL: Hydrazine-reduction of graphite- and graphene oxide).
In regards to claim 8, Lee/Yamakaji combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 7/6/1 and discussed above.
However, Lee/Yamakaji combination does not disclose wherein the distal end of the anchoring structure is covalently bound to the carbon material by a distal substrate C(O)-NH-NH-X or C(O)-NH-N=X wherein C(O)-NH-NH-X or C(O)-NH-N=X is a subunit of the anchoring structure, and X is an atom of the carbon material.
Park teaches that typical graphene oxide formed from Hummers method as taught by Yamakaji forces oxygen-containing functional groups such as hydroxyl, epoxy, carboxyl, and carbonyl group onto the carbon lattice. However, heavy oxygen functionalization destroys electrical conductivity. Therefore, Abakumov teaches that providing a reduced graphene oxide undoes the oxidation damage and restores graphene oxide back towards pristine graphene using chemical methods such as reducing agents like hydrazine (pg. 3019, Introduction: “The reduction of electrically insulating graphene oxide, which is exfoliated from graphite oxide (GO), and use of the colloidal suspensions of reduced graphene oxide is one of the most promising ways to produce electrically conducting graphene-based platelets on a large scale [7–11], and thus its potential in composites [12–14], paper-like materials and thin films [15,16], as substrates [17,18], as a coating layer [19], and as transparent conductive films [20,21].”; “It is well-known that significant amounts of these oxygen functional groups are removed by chemical reduction using reductants… by hydrazine”). This allows the reconnecting of conductive pathways and significantly improves electrical conductivity compared to graphene oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the graphene oxide of the anchoring structure of Yamakaji and provide a reduced graphene oxide which comprises hydrazine as a functional group as taught by Park, to arrive at the distal substructure and the subunit of the anchoring structure of the anchoring layer as claimed, as the reduction process of graphene oxide restores the sp2 carbon network while reconnecting conductive pathways and significantly improving electrical conductivity compared to graphene oxide (abstract and introduction).
The examiner notes that providing reduced graphene oxide via hydrazine as part of the anchoring structure of the anchor layer meets the limitation of claim 8 as -C(O)-NH-NH-X refers to a hydrazide linkage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks filed on July 8, 2026 is fully acknowledged.
Applicant’s argument of claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. PGPub. No. 2021/0228864) in view of Yamakaji (U.S. PGPub. No. 2013/0164619) has been considered. Applicant argues that Yamakaji fails to disclose “[an] anchoring layer…that is a monolayer”. Applicant argues that Yamakaji’s “anchor coat layer” is a bulk physical composite mixture of a binder polymer (such as PVDF, polyimide, CMC) and a conductive carbon material, such as acetylene black or graphene and that the bulk physical composite mixture cannot be defined as a “monolayer’. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim requires “at least part of the anchoring layer is a monolayer” which means that the graphene of the bulk physical composite mixture is inherently a monolayer. Unless the claim recites that “the anchoring layer is a monolayer”, the Examiner’s in the position that the graphene, which is a constituent or at least part of the bulk physical composite mixture, meets the newly added claim limitation of previously claim 5 and now incorporated into independent claim 1. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to paint Yamakaji’s bulk composite mixture between Lee’s platinum microelectrode and its protective graphene monolayer since Yamakaji’s mixture is for a battery is unpersuasive. As explained in above Office action, the examiner notes that while Yamakaji is directed to a battery, it is still considered an analogous art because Yamakaji is trying to solve the same problem as the Applicant of improving adhesion between a graphene material onto a metal base layer (instant specification, [0008]: “also for these graphene based (coating) materials, further improvement is desired, in particular an improved adhesion of films based on graphene oxide to metallic electrode base materials”). Specifically, Yamakaji teaches providing an anchor layer over the metal base layer ([0086]: “an anchor coat layer may be provided over the current collector before the positive electrode active material layer is formed over the current collector”) to improve adhesion between the graphene oxide layer (e.g. positive electrode active material layer) and the metal base layer (e.g. current collector). Additionally, Applicant’s argument that the combination would render the neurostimulation microelectrode inoperable for its intended medical purpose since the anchor layer is insulative is unpersuasive since Yamakaji is clear in that the mixture is an electrically conductive polymer. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive and the rejection is tenable.
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 EUNHWA KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1265. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, JOSEPH STOKLOSA can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights