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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-4, 9-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (NPL – Enhanced Sensitivity of Electrochemical Sensors for Ammonia-Nitrogen via In-Situ PtNi Nanoleaves on Carbon Cloth).
Claim 1 now requires the subject matter of previous claim 8, which was not explicitly rejected by Wang under 102(a)(1), however, given that Wang does anticipate all of original claim 1 and the incorporated subject matter, the claim is still rejected under 102(a)(1).
Considering claim 1, Wang discloses a chemoresistive film comprising a plurality of metal nanostructures (PtNi alloy nanoleaves, Abstract), the plurality of metal nanostructures having a selective affinity to at least one volatile gas species (ammonia), wherein the chemoresistive film exhibits a change in electrical resistance when the at least one volatile gas species is present in an environment of the chemoresistive film at a first concentration (Pages 9-10, 3.3 Determination of Ammonia, change in current with change in concentration), wherein the first concentration is no more than about 1000 ppm (Table 2; Detection Range = .5-500 μM ~ 9.02ppb-9.02ppm for NH4), wherein the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise branched nanoparticles (Figure 1b1, Pages 3-4, 3.1 Material Characterization – “the leaf-like nanosheets were combined into distinct flower clusters of nanomaterials”).
Considering claim 2, Wang discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise one or more of platinum, nickel, copper, palladium, silver, and gold (Abstract, Platinum and Nickel).
Considering claim 3, Wang discloses that the at least one volatile gas species comprises acetone, isoprene, methanol, nitric oxide, ammonia, ethanol, formaldehyde, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane, propane, or a combination thereof (Abstract, Ammonia).
Considering claim 4, Wang discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise platinum and nickel, and wherein the at least one volatile gas species comprises formaldehyde, ammonia, or a combination thereof (Abstract, PtNi alloy nanoleaves used to detect ammonia).
Considering claim 9, Wang discloses that the first concentration is no more than about 500 ppm (Table 2; Detection Range = .5-500 μM ~ 9.02ppb-9.02ppm, for NH4).
Considering claim 10, Wang discloses that the first concentration is no more than about 20 ppb (Table 2; Detection Range = .5-500 μM ~ 9.02ppb-9.02ppm, for NH4).
Claim 11 no requires the subject matter of previous claim 18, which was not explicitly rejected by Wang under 102(a)(1), however, given that Wang does anticipate all of original claim 1 and the incorporated subject matter, the claim is still rejected under 102(a)(1).
Considering claim 11, Wang discloses a sensor comprising:
- one or more chemoresistive films comprising a first chemoresistive film connected to a first lead and a second lead sufficient to complete a circuit, wherein the sensor is configured to measure electrical resistance across the chemoresistive film (Page 3, 3-electrode DPV technique, 2.2 Apparatus and Equipment requires two leads and the film), wherein the first chemoresistive film comprises a plurality of metal nanostructures (PtNi alloy nanoleaves, Abstract), the plurality of metal nanostructures having a selective affinity to at least one volatile gas species (ammonia), wherein the chemoresistive film exhibits a change in electrical resistance when the at least one volatile gas species is present in an environment of the chemoresistive film at a first concentration (Pages 9-10, 3.3 Determination of Ammonia, change in current with change in concentration), wherein the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise branched nanoparticles (Figure 1b1, Pages 3-4, 3.1 Material Characterization – “the leaf-like nanosheets were combined into distinct flower clusters of nanomaterials”).
Considering claim 12, Wang discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise one or more of platinum, nickel, copper, palladium, silver, and gold (Abstract, Platinum and Nickel).
Considering claim 13, Wang discloses that the at least one volatile gas species comprises acetone, isoprene, methanol, nitric oxide, ammonia, ethanol, formaldehyde, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane, propane, or a combination thereof (Abstract, Ammonia).
Considering claim 14, Wang discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise platinum and nickel, and wherein the at least one volatile gas species comprises formaldehyde, ammonia, or a combination thereof (Abstract, PtNi alloy nanoleaves used to detect ammonia).
Considering claim 19, Wang discloses that the first concentration is no more than about 1000 ppm (Table 2; Detection Range = .5-500 μM ~ 9.02ppb-9.02ppm for NH4).
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kapilov et al. (US 2024/0272108 A1).
Considering claim 1, Kapilov discloses a chemoresistive film comprising a plurality of metal nanostructures ([0003]; [0047]), the plurality of metal nanostructures having a selective affinity to at least one volatile gas species ([0029]; [0042]), wherein the chemoresistive film exhibits a change in electrical resistance when the at least one volatile gas species is present in an environment of the chemoresistive film at a first concentration ([0003]), wherein the first concentration is no more than about 1000 ppm ([0027]), wherein the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise branched nanoparticles ([0003-4]; [0007]; [0071-75]).
Considering claim 2, Kapilov discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise one or more of platinum, nickel, copper, palladium, silver, and gold ([0047]).
Considering claim 3, Kapilov discloses that the at least one volatile gas species comprises acetone, isoprene, methanol, nitric oxide, ammonia, ethanol, formaldehyde, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane, propane, or a combination thereof ([0095-97]).
Considering claim 9, Kapilov discloses that the first concentration is no more than about 500 ppm ([0096]).
Considering claim 10, Kapilov discloses that the first concentration is no more than about 20 ppb ([0096]).
Considering claim 11, Kapilov discloses a sensor comprising:
- one or more chemoresistive films comprising a first chemoresistive film connected to a first lead 120 and a second lead 110 sufficient to complete a circuit ([0043]), wherein the sensor is configured to measure electrical resistance across the chemoresistive film ([0043]), wherein the first chemoresistive film comprises a plurality of metal nanostructures ([0003]; [0047]), the plurality of metal nanostructures having a selective affinity to at least one volatile gas species ([0029]; [0042]), wherein the chemoresistive film exhibits a change in electrical resistance when the at least one volatile gas species is present in an environment of the chemoresistive film at a first concentration ([0003]), wherein plurality of metal nanostructures comprise branched nanoparticles ([0003-4]; [0007]; [0071-75]).
Considering claim 12, Kapilov discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise one or more of platinum, nickel, copper, palladium, silver, and gold ([0047]).
Considering claim 13, Kapilov discloses that the at least one volatile gas species comprises acetone, isoprene, methanol, nitric oxide, ammonia, ethanol, formaldehyde, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane, propane, or a combination thereof ([0095-97]).
Considering claim 19, Kapilov discloses that the first concentration is no more than about 1000 ppm ([0027]).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motayed et al. (US 2017/0038326 A1) in view of Kapilov et al. (US 2024/0272108 A1).
Considering claim 1, Motayed discloses a chemoresistive film comprising a plurality of metal nanostructures ([0015]; [0017-18], Claim 1), the plurality of metal nanostructures having a selective affinity to at least one volatile gas species ([0019], Claim 11), wherein the chemoresistive film exhibits a change in electrical resistance when the at least one volatile gas species ([0019], Claim 2) is present in an environment of the chemoresistive film at a first concentration ([0016]), wherein the first concentration is no more than about 1000 ppm ([0020]; Claim 23).
The invention by Motayed discloses the use of a plurality of metal nanoparticle structures, but fails to explicitly disclose that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise branched nanoparticles.
However, Kapilov teaches the use of a plurality of metal or metal-oxide nanostructures that comprise branched nanoparticles ([0003-4]; [0007]; [0047-48]; [0071-75]), whereby ligands surrounding the nanostructures are branched.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the branched ligands, as taught by Kapilov, in the invention by Motayed. The motivation for doing so, as suggested by Kapilov, and known in the art, is that the branched ligand-shell presentation allows enhanced binding affinity for a desired VOC as compared to the unmodified noble metal-oxide nanoparticle ([0092]).
Considering claim 2, Motayed discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise one or more of platinum, nickel, copper, palladium, silver, and gold ([0018]; Claim 7).
Considering claim 3, Motayed discloses that the at least one volatile gas species comprises acetone, isoprene, methanol, nitric oxide, ammonia, ethanol, formaldehyde, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane, propane, or a combination thereof ([0019]; Claim 11, Claim 15).
Considering claim 5, Motayed discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise platinum and palladium ([0018], combination or mixture thereof), and wherein the at least one volatile gas species comprises nitric oxide ([0246], NOx, Claim 11).
Considering claim 6, Motayed discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise platinum and copper ([0018], combination or mixture thereof), and wherein the at least one volatile gas species comprises isoprene, nitric oxide, methanol, or a combination thereof ([0019], methanol, Claim 15, [0246], NOx, Claim 11).
Considering claim 7, Motayed discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise platinum and silver ([0018], combination or mixture thereof), and wherein the at least one volatile gas species comprises acetone ([0019], acetone, Claim 15).
Considering claim 9, Motayed discloses that the first concentration is no more than about 500 ppm ([0020]; Claim 23).
Considering claim 10, Motayed discloses that the first concentration is no more than about 20 ppb ([0020]; Claim 23).
Considering claim 11, Motayed discloses a sensor comprising:
- one or more chemoresistive films comprising a first chemoresistive film connected to a first lead and a second lead sufficient to complete a circuit (Figure 9; sense current in and out; Figure 13, [0146]), wherein the sensor is configured to measure electrical resistance across the chemoresistive film ([0016]; [0023]), wherein the first chemoresistive film comprises a plurality of metal nanostructures ([0015]; [0018], Claim 1), the plurality of metal nanostructures having a selective affinity to at least one volatile gas species ([0019], Claim 11), wherein the chemoresistive film exhibits a change in electrical resistance when the at least one volatile gas species ([0019], Claim 2) is present in an environment of the chemoresistive film at a first concentration ([0016]).
The invention by Motayed discloses the use of a plurality of metal nanoparticle structures, but fails to explicitly disclose that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise branched nanoparticles.
However, Kapilov teaches the use of a plurality of metal or metal-oxide nanostructures that comprise branched nanoparticles ([0003-4]; [0007]; [0047-48]; [0071-75]), whereby ligands surrounding the nanostructures are branched.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the branched ligands, as taught by Kapilov, in the invention by Motayed. The motivation for doing so, as suggested by Kapilov, and known in the art, is that the branched ligand-shell presentation allows enhanced binding affinity for a desired VOC as compared to the unmodified noble metal-oxide nanoparticle ([0092]).
Considering claim 12, Motayed discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise one or more of platinum, nickel, copper, palladium, silver, and gold ([0018]; Claim 7).
Considering claim 13, Motayed discloses that the at least one volatile gas species comprises acetone, isoprene, methanol, nitric oxide, ammonia, ethanol, formaldehyde, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane, propane, or a combination thereof ([0019]; Claim 11, Claim 15).
Considering claim 15, Motayed discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise platinum and palladium ([0018], combination or mixture thereof), and wherein the at least one volatile gas species comprises nitric oxide ([0246], NOx, Claim 11).
Considering claim 16, Motayed discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise platinum and copper ([0018], combination or mixture thereof), and wherein the at least one volatile gas species comprises isoprene, nitric oxide, methanol, or a combination thereof ([0019], methanol, Claim 15, [0246], NOx, Claim 11).
Considering claim 17, Motayed discloses that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise platinum and silver ([0018], combination or mixture thereof), and wherein the at least one volatile gas species comprises acetone ([0019], acetone, Claim 15).
Considering claim 19, Motayed discloses that the first concentration is no more than about 1000 ppm ([0020]; Claim 23).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (US 2012/0156099 A1) in view of Kapilov et al. (US 2024/0272108 A1).
Considering claim 20, Zhong discloses a method of making a chemoresistive film comprising: providing a solution comprising a plurality of metal nanostructures ([0148]) and a solvent ([0149]; [0151]); applying the solution onto a support ([0152-153]); and drying the solvent ([0152-153]).
The invention by Zhong discloses the use of metal or metal alloy cores, ligand-capped nanoparticles and linkers to form a nanoparticle assembly, but fails to explicitly disclose that the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise branched nanoparticles.
However, Kapilov teaches the use of a plurality of metal or metal-oxide nanostructures that comprise branched nanoparticles ([0003-4]; [0007]; [0047-48]; [0071-75]), whereby ligands surrounding the nanostructures are branched.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the branched ligands, as taught by Kapilov, in the invention by Zhong. The motivation for doing so, as suggested by Kapilov, and known in the art, is that the branched ligand-shell presentation allows enhanced binding affinity for a desired VOC as compared to the unmodified noble metal-oxide nanoparticle ([0092]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6, Applicant argues that Wang, Motayed and Zhong all fail to disclose branched nanoparticles.
It is primarily noted that the specification is devoid of a special definition for “branched nanoparticles” and the claims are examined in view of their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification, MPEP 2111. A review of the specification finds no additional insight into the precise interpretation that the Applicant would like applied to the claim language. Neither the claims nor the specification require that the metal core itself is branched, that the nanoparticle itself has integral metallic branches/spikes, or that the feature must be a specific morphology, such as a nanostar or dendritic. The claims and the specification fail to define or limit whether the branching occurs by the metal core, surface ligands, shell, coating or overall nanoparticle architecture.
Reviewing Wang, and based on the amendment, the Examiner finds that the clustered nanoflakes arranging themselves as a nanoflower is a sufficiently reasonable interpretation, without being overly broad, of branched nanoparticles (Pages 3-4, 3.1 Material Characterization – “the leaf-like nanosheets were combined into distinct flower clusters of nanomaterials”). The individual nanoflakes, aggregated to form a flower-type structure, have effectively “branched” around a central body and expanded outwardly with branch-like/petal-like features. The nanostructured flowers of Wang are effectively branched nanoparticles. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments against Wang are unpersuasive.
Continuing onto page 6, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the branched carbon chains forming the ligands of Kapilov fails to adequately anticipated or render obvious the claimed subject matter of “the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise branched nanoparticles”. The Examiner has already established the BRI for “branched nanoparticles” and the express statement of Kapilov that the ligands contain branched elements surrounding the nanoparticles is sufficient showing of branched nanoparticles because the core within the ligands are branched to one another through the ligands, which are also branched. Figures 1-2, Kapilov, render it clear that the core nanoparticles are branched to one another through the branched ligand arrangement. This argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant additionally notes the purported significance of branched structures because they provide “favorable physisorption sites” ([0120] of the original specification). Physisorption is understood to refer to adherence through weak intermolecular forces rather than a chemical bond, therefore, the Examiner assumes that Applicant contends that the “branched” structure provides favorable locations for a volatile gas specie to weakly bond with the nanoparticles themselves.
The Examiner, however, also finds that ligands, as taught by Kapilov, provide favorable “binding affinity of the modified noble metal nanoparticle for the analyte of interest because they are enhanced by at least 2 times, at least 10 times, at least 100 times, at least 1000 times, at least 10.000[sic] times, at least 1000.000 [sic] times, including any range between, as compared to a binding affinity for a control” ([0092]), whereby the sensitivity of the sensor “results from the chemical and physical properties of…the sensors’ ligands” ([0005]), whereby “the modified noble metal nanoparticles exhibited an unexpected selectivity and/or sensitivity to numerous VC and/or VOCs of interest” ([0042]), whereby “organic ligands are bonded with the surface of the metallic core at one end and are configured to be weakly bonded…to a VC at the other end”, ([0003]). The Examiner maintains that the ligand-shell metal core nanostructure contains branched nanoparticles and further provides the same desired advantage. Functionally and structurally the invention by Kapilov anticipates and renders obvious the claimed subject matter of “the plurality of metal nanostructures comprise branched nanoparticles”. Applicant arguments are non-persuasive.
The remainder of Applicant’s argument are related claims 11 and 20, using the same rationale. Accordingly, the arguments against claims 11 and 20 are non-persuasive for the same reasons as presented against claim 1, above. Lastly, claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17 and 19, being dependent upon claims 1 or 11, lack any further arguments.
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 Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights