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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 8 (where claim 15 and claim 8 both depend from claim 1 and both recite “wherein the nanomaterial is functionalized to selectively capture more analytes”). When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 15 should be dependent on the independent clam 8 (instead of claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhong et al. (US20160290955A1) and Passmore et al. (US20060055392A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee and joint inventor(s) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Zhong et al. discloses a similar nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, the nanoelectronic heterodyne sensor 10, and the Claim(s) 1-17 in [0007]-[0060] in Fig. 1-13B). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhong et al. teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, the nanoelectronic heterodyne sensor 10, and the Claim(s) 1-17 in [0007]-[0060] in Fig. 1-13B), comprising:
a field effect transistor having a source electrode (See how the field effect transistor is comprised of a source electrode 12 in [0034] in Fig. 1),
a drain electrode (See the drain electrode 14 in [0034] in Fig. 1),
a gate electrode (See the gate electrode 15 in [0034] in Fig. 1), and
a channel region, where the channel region is comprised of a nanomaterial (See the channel region 13 in [0034] in Fig. 1);
an encasement formed over an exposed surface of the channel region, the encasement having an inlet configured to receive an analyte of interest and a flow channel defined therein, such that the flow channel guides the analyte of interest across the exposed surface of the channel region (See the top silicone substrate 95, i.e. an encasement, in [055] in Fig. 13A-B; Also, see how the substrate 104 may be insulating, or on the alternative, may comprise a layered structure, having the base 114 and the separate dielectric layer 116 disposed to isolate the contacts 110, 112 and the conducting channel 106 from the substrate base 114 in [0038]-[0046] in Fig. 1); and
a measurement circuit electrically coupled between the source electrode and the drain electrode and operates to measure change in direct current (DC) between the source electrode and the drain electrode, where magnitude of the DC current change is indicative of quantity of the analyte of interest (See in [0013]-[0015] and claim(s) 11,14).
Zhong et al. fails to explicitly teach a nanoelectronic sensor, comprising: an encasement formed over an exposed surface of the channel region, the encasement having an inlet configured to receive an analyte of interest and a flow channel defined therein, such that the flow channel guides the analyte of interest across the exposed surface of the channel region.
However, in the analogous art of battery powered nanostructure sensor devices, Passmore et al. teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, electronic sensing device 300, and the Claim(s) 1-28 in [0002]-[0138] in Fig. 1-9), comprising: an encasement formed over an exposed surface of the channel region, the encasement having an inlet configured to receive an analyte of interest and a flow channel defined therein, such that the flow channel guides the analyte of interest across the exposed surface of the channel region (See how the passivation layer 318, the electrodes 310,312, and the nanotube channel 306 are encased in the encapsulation material 316 in [0111]-[0117] in Fig. 4); and measurement circuitry (See in [0038]-[0041], [0087] in Fig. 1 and claim 4).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the sensor of Zhong et al. by incorporating an encasement or cover (as taught by Passmore et al.) for the benefit of controlling a desired degree of interaction of a target analyte, such as gaseous hydrogen in air, with nanomaterial.
Note what is discussed in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). The instant claim limitations regarding the "encasement" relative to the "channel region", does not change the function of the claimed invention in comparison to the prior art.
Regarding Claim(s) 2-6, The combination of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. teach the sensor limitations of claim 1.
Zhong et al. further teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, the nanoelectronic heterodyne sensor 10, and the Claim(s) 1-17 in [0007]-[0060] in Fig. 1-13B), further comprises a drive source electrically coupled to the gate electrode and applies a DC voltage thereto (See in [0004]-[0005], [0013]-[0015], [0035]-[0045] in Fig. 2,7-9 and claim(s) 11,14);
wherein the flow channel in the encasement has a serpentine shape (See the (See the serpentine flow channel 92 in [0055] in Fig. 13A-B);
wherein height to width ratio of the flow channel is in range of 0.001 to 10 (See in [0037]-[0038]);
wherein the nanomaterial is graphene (See how the channel region 13 is comprised of graphene in [0004]-[0014], [0034] in Fig. 1 and in claim 12);
further comprises a delivery mechanism that delivers the analyte of interest to the inlet of the encasement (See how the analyte of interest is then delivered at 25 to a channel region of the transistor in [0038], [0055] in Fig. 2,13A-B and claim 15).
Note what is discussed in MPEP § 2144 IV. A. concerning changes in the size or portions of a claimed invention. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The current claim limitation regarding the "height to width ratio of the flow channel", does not change the function of the claimed invention in comparison to the prior art.
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. teach the sensor limitations of claim 6.
Zhong et al. further teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, the nanoelectronic heterodyne sensor 10, and the Claim(s) 1-17 in [0007]-[0060] in Fig. 1-13B), wherein the delivery mechanism includes a gas chromatograph (See the micro gas chromatography channel 92 in [0006], [0038], [0055] in Fig. 13A; Also, see the standard GC system 32 in [0046] in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. teach the sensor limitations of claim 1.
Zhong et al. fails to explicitly teach a nanoelectronic sensor, wherein the nanomaterial is functionalized to selectively capture more analytes.
However, in the analogous art of battery powered nanostructure sensor devices, Passmore et al. teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, electronic sensing device 300, and the Claim(s) 1-28 in [0002]-[0138] in Fig. 1-9), wherein the nanomaterial is functionalized to selectively capture more analytes (See how the conducting channel 106, e.g. a carbon nanotube layer, may be functionalized to produce the sensitivity to the one or more target analytes 101 in [0043] in Fig. 1).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the combined sensor of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. by incorporating a functionalized nanomaterial (as taught by Passmore et al.) for the benefit of selectively capturing more analytes on the sensor.
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. teach the sensor limitations of claim 1.
Zhong et al. further teaches a sensing system (See the Abstract, the nanoelectronic heterodyne sensor array, in Fig. 1,3,13B and Claim(s) 1-17), comprised of an array of nanoelectronic sensors disposed on a substrate (See how the bottom substrate 91 and how the top silicone substrate 95 contains the graphene sensor array 96 and electrodes 97 in [0055] in Fig. 13A-B), where each nanoelectronic sensor is implemented in accordance with claim 1 (See in [0055] in Fig. 13A-B).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhong et al. teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, the nanoelectronic heterodyne sensor 10, and the Claim(s) 1-17 in [0007]-[0060] in Fig. 1-13B), comprising:
a field effect transistor having a source electrode (See how the field effect transistor is comprised of a source electrode 12 in [0034] in Fig. 1),
a drain electrode (See the drain electrode 14 in [0034] in Fig. 1),
a gate electrode (See the gate electrode 15 in [0034] in Fig. 1), and
a channel region, where the channel region is comprised of a nanomaterial (See the channel region 13 in [0034] in Fig. 1);
a delivery mechanism that directs an analyte of interest across an exposed surface of the channel region (See how the analyte of interest is then delivered at 25 to a channel region of the transistor in [0038], [0055] in Fig. 2,13A-B and claim 15); and
a measurement circuit electrically coupled between the source electrode and the drain electrode and operates to measure change in direct current (DC) between the source electrode and the drain electrode, where magnitude of the DC current change is indicative of quantity of the analyte of interest (See in [0013]-[0015] and claim(s) 11,14).
Zhong et al. fails to explicitly teach a nanoelectronic sensor, comprising: an apparatus that guides the analyte of interest across the exposed surface of the channel region and is configured to increase interaction between the analyte of interest and the nanomaterial in the channel region.
However, in the analogous art of battery powered nanostructure sensor devices, Passmore et al. teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, electronic sensing device 300, and the Claim(s) 1-28 in [0002]-[0138] in Fig. 1-9), an apparatus that guides the analyte of interest across the exposed surface of the channel region and is configured to increase interaction between the analyte of interest and the nanomaterial in the channel region (See how the functionalization material 120 and how the sensing device 100 detects the analyte 101 in [0043]-[0046] in Fig. 1 and claim(s) 9-11; Also, see how the passivation layer 318, the electrodes 310,312, and the nanotube channel 306 are encased in the encapsulation material 316 in [0111]-[0117] in Fig. 4 ); and measurement circuitry (See in [0038]-[0041], [0087] in Fig. 1 and claim 4).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the combined sensor of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. by incorporating an apparatus that guides the analyte of interest across the exposed surface of the channel region (as taught by Passmore et al.) for the benefit of increasing the interaction between the analyte of interest and the nanomaterial in the channel region of the sensor
Regarding Claim(s) 11-13, The combination of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. teach the sensor limitations of claim 10.
Zhong et al. further teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, the nanoelectronic heterodyne sensor 10, and the Claim(s) 1-17 in [0007]-[0060] in Fig. 1-13B), further comprises a drive source electrically coupled to the gate electrode and applies a DC voltage thereto (See in [0004]-[0005], [0013]-[0015], [0035]-[0045] in Fig. 2,7-9 and claim(s) 11,14);
further comprises a drive source electrically coupled to the gate electrode and applies a drive signal with an alternating current thereto (See in [ooo4], [0013], [0033]-[0042] in Fig. 1-2 and claim(s) 1-3);
wherein the nanomaterial is graphene (See how the channel region 13 is comprised of graphene in [0004]-[0014], [0034] in Fig. 1 and in claim 12).
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. teach the sensor limitations of claim 10.
Zhong et al. further teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, the nanoelectronic heterodyne sensor 10, and the Claim(s) 1-17 in [0007]-[0060] in Fig. 1-13B), wherein the apparatus is further defined as an encasement formed over an exposed surface of the nanomaterial in channel region, the encasement having an inlet configured to receive an analyte of interest and a flow channel defined therein, such that the flow channel guides the analyte of interest across the exposed surface of the channel region (See the top silicone substrate 95, i.e. an encasement, in [055] in Fig. 13A-B).
Zhong et al. fails to explicitly teach a nanoelectronic sensor, wherein the apparatus is further defined as an encasement formed over an exposed surface of the nanomaterial in channel region, the encasement having an inlet configured to receive an analyte of interest and a flow channel defined therein, such that the flow channel guides the analyte of interest across the exposed surface of the channel region.
However, in the analogous art of battery powered nanostructure sensor devices, Passmore et al. teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, electronic sensing device 300, and the Claim(s) 1-28 in [0002]-[0138] in Fig. 1-9), wherein the apparatus is further defined as an encasement formed over an exposed surface of the nanomaterial in channel region, the encasement having an inlet configured to receive an analyte of interest and a flow channel defined therein, such that the flow channel guides the analyte of interest across the exposed surface of the channel region (See how the passivation layer 318, the electrodes 310,312, and the nanotube channel 306 are encased in the encapsulation material 316 in [0111]-[0117] in Fig. 4; Also, see how the substrate 104 may be insulating, or on the alternative, may comprise a layered structure, having the base 114 and the separate dielectric layer 116 disposed to isolate the contacts 110, 112 and the conducting channel 106 from the substrate base 114 in [0038]-[0046] in Fig. 1); and measurement circuitry (See in [0038]-[0041], [0087] in Fig. 1 and claim 4).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the sensor of Zhong et al. by incorporating an encasement or cover (as taught by Passmore et al.) for the benefit of controlling a desired degree of interaction of a target analyte, such as gaseous hydrogen in air, with nanomaterial.
Regarding Claim 15, The combination of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. teach the sensor limitations of claim 10.
Zhong et al. fails to explicitly teach a nanoelectronic sensor, wherein the nanomaterial is functionalized to selectively capture more analytes.
However, in the analogous art of battery powered nanostructure sensor devices, Passmore et al. teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, electronic sensing device 300, and the Claim(s) 1-28 in [0002]-[0138] in Fig. 1-9), wherein the nanomaterial is functionalized to selectively capture more analytes (See how the conducting channel 106, e.g. a carbon nanotube layer, may be functionalized to produce the sensitivity to the one or more target analytes 101 in [0043] in Fig. 1).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the combined sensor of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. by incorporating a functionalized nanomaterial (as taught by Passmore et al.) for the benefit of selectively capturing more analytes on the sensor.
Regarding Claim 16, Zhong et al. teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, the nanoelectronic heterodyne sensor 10, and the Claim(s) 1-17 in [0007]-[0060] in Fig. 1-13B), comprising:
a dielectric substrate (See how the substrate 16 is comprised of silicon dioxide (SiO2) or another common dielectric in [0034 in Fig. 1);
a top electrode electrically coupled to a top surface of the dielectric substrate (See the source electrode 12 and the drain electrode 14 in [0034] in Fig. 1);
a bottom electrode electrically coupled to a bottom surface of the dielectric substrate (See how the gate electrode 15 disposed on an underside of a substrate 16 in [0034] in Fig. 1); and
a nanomaterial disposed on a portion of the top surface of the dielectric substrate (See the channel region 13 in [0004], [0034] in Fig. 1 and claim(s) 9-11);
an encasement formed over the nanomaterial, the encasement having an inlet configured to receive an analyte of interest and a flow channel defined therein, such that the flow channel guides the analyte of interest over the nanomaterial (See the top silicone substrate 95, i.e. an encasement, in [055] in Fig. 13A-B); and
a measurement circuit electrically coupled between the two electrodes and operates to measure impedance changes in alternative current (AC) between the two electrodes, where the magnitude of the AC current change is indicative of quantity of the analyte of interest (See in [ooo4], [0013], [0033]-[0042] in Fig. 1-2 and claim(s) 1-10).
Zhong et al. fails to explicitly teach a nanoelectronic sensor, comprising: an encasement formed over the nanomaterial, the encasement having an inlet configured to receive an analyte of interest and a flow channel defined therein, such that the flow channel guides the analyte of interest over the nanomaterial.
However, in the analogous art of battery powered nanostructure sensor devices, Passmore et al. teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, electronic sensing device 300, and the Claim(s) 1-28 in [0002]-[0138] in Fig. 1-9), comprising: an encasement formed over the nanomaterial, the encasement having an inlet configured to receive an analyte of interest and a flow channel defined therein, such that the flow channel guides the analyte of interest over the nanomaterial (See how the passivation layer 318, the electrodes 310,312, and the nanotube channel 306 are encased in the encapsulation material 316 in [0111]-[0117] in Fig. 4; Also, see how the substrate 104 may be insulating, or on the alternative, may comprise a layered structure, having the base 114 and the separate dielectric layer 116 disposed to isolate the contacts 110, 112 and the conducting channel 106 from the substrate base 114 in [0038]-[0046] in Fig. 1); and measurement circuitry (See in [0038]-[0041], [0087] in Fig. 1 and claim 4).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the sensor of Zhong et al. by incorporating an encasement or cover (as taught by Passmore et al.) for the benefit of controlling a desired degree of interaction of a target analyte, such as gaseous hydrogen in air, with nanomaterial.
Regarding Claim(s) 17-18, The combination of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. teach the sensor limitations of claim 16.
Zhong et al. further teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, the nanoelectronic heterodyne sensor 10, and the Claim(s) 1-17 in [0007]-[0060] in Fig. 1-13B), further comprises a drive source electrically coupled to the top and bottom electrodes and applies an AC signal across the top and bottom electrodes (See in [ooo4], [0013], [0033]-[0042] in Fig. 1-2 and claim(s) 1-10);
wherein the nanomaterial is graphene (See how the channel region 13 is comprised of graphene in [0004]-[0014], [0034] in Fig. 1 and in claim 12).
Regarding Claim 19, The combination of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. teach the sensor limitations of claim 16.
Zhong et al. fails to explicitly teach a nanoelectronic sensor, wherein the nanomaterial is functionalized to selectively capture more analytes.
However, in the analogous art of battery powered nanostructure sensor devices, Passmore et al. teaches a nanoelectronic sensor (See the Abstract, electronic sensing device 300, and the Claim(s) 1-28 in [0002]-[0138] in Fig. 1-9), wherein the nanomaterial is functionalized to selectively capture more analytes (See how the conducting channel 106, e.g. a carbon nanotube layer, may be functionalized to produce the sensitivity to the one or more target analytes 101 in [0043] in Fig. 1).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the combined sensor of Zhong et al. and Passmore et al. by incorporating a functionalized nanomaterial (as taught by Passmore et al.) for the benefit of selectively capturing more analytes on the sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art teaches similar devices and methods: Goldsmith et al. (US11536722B2), Gabriel (US20070048180A1), and Andersson et al. (US20220250054A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:30pm CT.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights