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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/15/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 09/15/2025
The examiner modified the rejection below to address claimed amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al (WO 2020080664, using PG pub 20210376216), and further in view of Song et al “Noncovalent self-assembled monolayers on graphene as a highly stable platform for molecular tunnel junctions, 2016”.
Regarding claim 1, Yoon et al teaches a thermoelectric device comprising organic thermoelectric junction comprising SAM on Au layer (Au.sup.TS/SAM//Ga.sub.2O.sub.3/EGaIn junction) [fig 1 5 para 42-43]. However, Yoon et al does not a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) formed by self-assembly of n-alkylamine 5 (H2NC, where n is an integer from 4 to 30) molecules on the single layer-graphene.
Song et al teaches an electronic junction comprising Cu/Graphene/SAM//Ga.sub.2O.sub.3/EGaIn where single layer-graphene (SLG) and a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) formed by self-assembly of n-alkylamine 5 (H2NC, where n is an integer from 4 to 30) molecules on the single layer-graphene [fig 1 abstract para 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the SAM and Au layer of Yoon et al by the SAM on graphene layer of Song et al for a good barrier against tunneling in SAM-based junction, increasing electrical stability and low resistance (last paragraph).
modified Yoon et al teaches there being a noncovalent contact between the amine group of the n-alkylamine and the graphene [para 3]. There is n-type doping since modified Yoon et al teaches the claimed structure and material. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
The recitation “is induced… graphene” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yoon et al teaches the single layer-graphene is in noncovalent contact with the self-assembled monolayer formed by self-assembly of n-alkylamine molecules (fig 1 para 1-3, Song et al).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yoon et al teaches the claimed material and structure. Thus, it is considered that he thermoelectric properties of the organic thermoelectric junction increase with increasing n. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 5, Yoon et al teaches a thermoelectric device comprising first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic thermoelectric junction and organic thermoelectric junction comprising SAM on Au layer layer (Au.sup.TS/SAM//Ga.sub.2O.sub.3/EGaIn junction) [fig 1]. However, Yoon et al does not a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) formed by self-assembly of n-alkylamine 5 (H2NC, where n is an integer from 4 to 30) molecules on the single layer-graphene.
Song et al teaches an electronic junction comprising Cu/Graphene/SAM//Ga.sub.2O.sub.3/EGaIn where single layer-graphene (SLG) and a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) formed by self-assembly of n-alkylamine 5 (H2NC, where n is an integer from 4 to 30) molecules on the single layer-graphene [fig 1 para 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the SAM and Au layer of Yoon et al by the SAM on graphene layer of Song et al for a good barrier against tunneling in SAM-based junction, increasing electrical stability and low resistance (last paragraph).
modified Yoon et al teaches there being a noncovalent contact between the amine group of the n-alkylamine and the graphene [para 3]. There is n-type doping since modified Yoon et al teaches the claimed structure and material. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
The recitation “is induced… graphene” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoon et al teaches the single layer-graphene being function as the first electrode.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yoon et al teaches there being a noncovalent contact between the amine group of the n-alkylamine and the graphene [para 3]. There is n-type doping since modified Yoon et al teaches the claimed structure and material. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
The recitation “is induced… graphene” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yoon et al teaches the claimed material and structure. Thus, it is considered that he thermoelectric properties of the organic thermoelectric junction increase with increasing n. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in substance:
Song fails to disclose or suggest at least "wherein n-type doping is induced by electronic interaction at the noncovalent contact between the amine group of the n-alkylamine and the graphene."
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Song et al teaches there being a noncovalent contact between the amine group of the n-alkylamine and the graphene [para 3]. There is n-type doping since Song et al teaches the claimed structure and material. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. The recitation “is induced… graphene” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113.
there was no motivation or suggestion in Yoon to use the electronic junction of Song such as to prepare the organic thermoelectric junction
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Yoon teaches thermoelectric device comprising organic thermoelectric junction comprising SAM on Au layer and used as an electrode (Au.sup.TS/SAM//Ga.sub.2O.sub.3/EGaIn junction.). Song et al teaches Cu/Graphene/SAM//Ga.sub.2O.sub.3/EGaIn junction. Both Yoon and Song et al used this structure for the electrode. Thus, these structures have the same function and by replace the structure of Yoon by Song et al, it would provide a good barrier against tunneling in SAM-based junction, increasing electrical stability and low resistance (last paragraph). Also, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
those of ordinary skill would not have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so where claim 1 and 5, as currently amended, yields unexpected and superior results for organic thermoelectric junction over Yoon and Song.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Since Yoon and Song teaches the claimed structure, Song and Yoon have the same properties and yields unexpected and superior results for organic thermoelectric junction as claimed. It is noted that the applicant should provide any proof or evidence showing such structure would yields unexpected and superior results for organic thermoelectric junction.
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 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 UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights