DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Summary
This Office Action based on the Response to Restriction Requirement filed with the Office on 29 May 2026, regarding the Tai, et al. application.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending, and claims 1-9 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 29 May 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that rejoinder is requested should the claims of Group I be found allowable. This is not found persuasive because it does not point to any particular error in the Restriction Requirement mail dated on 2 April 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 29 May 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted regarding the present application filed on 19 April 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a published paper by C. Chang, et al. (“Human Exhalation CO2 Sensor Based on the PEI-PEG/ZnO/NUNCD/Si Heterojunction Electrode”, ACS Omega 7(18): p. 15657-15665, April 25, 2022; hereinafter, “Chang”).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a non-invasive carbon dioxide sensor, comprising (Title):
a conductive substrate including a base (Si, Figure 3c) and at least two electrodes disposed on said base and spaced apart from each other (TCNT sites at either end of structure, Figure 3c);
an electrical transmission layer disposed on said conductive substrate (NUNCD layer and ZnO layer, Figure 3c), and including a plurality of carbon nanotubes crossing one another (carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are taught as an alternative to NUNDC, 2nd ¶, Introduction: “… on the other hand, if a high electrical conductance property is required, carbon nanotubes (CNTs), reduced graphene oxide (rGO), and nitrogen-doped ultrananocrystalline diamond (NUNCD) are the most promising candidates.”) and a plurality of metal oxide nanorods attached to said carbon nanotubes (ZnO layer, Figure 3c),
said carbon nanotubes and said metal oxide nanorods together forming a composite material having a three-dimensional structure (Figure 2 c,d); and
a gas sensing layer disposed on said electrical transmission layer, and including a polymer material that contains at least one amino functional group capable of reacting with carbon dioxide (PEI-PEG layer, Figure 3c).
Regarding claim 2, Chang teaches using ZnO (Title).
Regarding claim 3, Chang teaches using polyethylenimine (PEI) (Title).
Regarding claim 7, Chang teaches the base is silicon (Si) (Figure 3c).
Regarding claim 9, Chang teaches a hierarchical three-dimensional structure (3rd ¶, Results and Discussion: “The electrode is composed of four parts: PEI-PEG (CO2 adsorption layer), ZnO (surface area-promoting layer), NUNCD (nucleation site, conductive layer), and silicon (substrate).”)
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Chang teaches the limitation of instant claim 1, as outlined above.
Chang does not explicitly teach multiple layers of the electrical transmission layer or the gas sensing layer.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of a published paper by W. Zhou, et al. (“Effective control of nanodefects in multiwalled carbon nanotubes by acid treatment”, Carbon, 78: p. 121-129, Nov 1 2014; hereinafter, “Zhou”).
Regarding claim 4, Chang teaches the limitation of instant claim 1, as outlined above.
Chang does not explicitly teach the carbon nanotubes are acid treated.
However, Zhou teaches treating of carbon nanotubes with a mixture of sulfuric and nitric acids (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 acid treatment described by Zhou to produced the carbon nanotubes utilized in the apparatus disclosed by Chang because acid treated carbon nanotubes provide uniform dispersibility (Zhou, Abstract).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of a published paper by S. Kanaparthi, et al. (“Chemiresistive Sensor Based on Zinc Oxide Nanoflakes for CO2 Detection”, ACS Applied Nano Materials, 2(2): p. 700-706, Jan 16 2019; hereinafter, “Kanaparthi”).
Regarding claim 8, Chang teaches the limitation of instant claim 1, as outlined above.
Chang does not explicitly teach the base is any material other than silicon.
However, Kanaparthi discloses a ZnO-based carbon dioxide sensor wherein the base material is polyimide (2.4. Device Fabrication and Sensing: “The sensor was fabricated on a polyimide substrate …”).
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 made the simple substitution of the taught polyimide substrate for the disclosed silicon substrate with predictable results.
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
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 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 at (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.
/J. Christopher Ball/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights