DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-12 are pending.
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, 3-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (KR20210098131, examiner is using English machine Translation as provided) in view of Seo et al. (KR 101557611, examiner is using English Machine Translation as provided).
Claim 1. Woo et al. teach a nanogap-based hydrogen sensor (hydrogen sensor with nanogap; Fig 2 and page 3) including:
a metamaterial (electrode coated onto substrate 1) manufactured by forming a metal nanoslot pattern on a wafer (support part 2 onto substrate 1 forms the nanoslot 4; see pages 4-5);
a catalyst layer deposited on the surface of the metamaterial to form a nanogap inside the metal nanoslot (sensor unit 3 made up of palladium is deposited onto the electrode to form nanogap inside the nanoslot 4; see pages 3-5), wherein the catalyst layer is formed by depositing a catalyst material on the surface of the metamaterial, the nanogap is formed between the metal wall surface and the catalyst layer inside the metal nanoslot due to the step difference of the metal nanoslot (nanogap is formed between the electrode surface and the sensor unit 3 protrusion 32 inside the nanoslot 4 due to step difference of the nanoslot 4).
Woo et al. do not teach a protective layer formed on the catalyst layer to protect the catalyst layer. However, Seo et al. teach hydrogen sensor comprising sensing layer 230 covered with protective layer 250 to protect the sensing layer from external contaminants (page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Seo et al. teaching to form a protecting layer on the catalyst/sensor unit 3 of Woo et al. because the protection layer protects the sensor unit from external contaminants.
Claim 3. Woo et al. teach the nanoslot 4 is formed with nano-dimension. Woo et al. do not explicitly teach the nanogap has a width of 10 to 25 nm. However, Woo et al. teach the nanogap thickness can be adjusted by changing the thickness of sacrificial layer 5 (see page 5), therefore the nanogap width could be adjusted
Claim 4. Woo et al. teach the catalyst layer causes a distance change from the wall surface of the metal forming the metal nanoslot as the volume thereof expands due to a reaction with hydrogen, thereby changing a gap size of the nanogap (the protrusion part 32 expands due to presence of hydrogen and distance change from the electrode and protrusion; see page 4).
Claims 5 and 6 is/are considered product-by-process claim. 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claim 7. Woo et al. teach a method of manufacturing a nanogap-based hydrogen sensor (method of making hydrogen sensor comprising nanogap; see Fig 5a-c and page 3), the method including the steps of:
manufacturing a metamaterial by forming a metal nanoslot on a wafer (electrode coating is disposed on substrate 1; see pages 4-5);
depositing a catalyst material on the surface of the metamaterial to form a catalyst layer forming a nanogap inside the metal nanoslot (sensor unit 3 made up of palladium is deposited onto the electrode surface to form nanogap inside the nanoslot 4; see pages 3-5), wherein the catalyst layer is formed by depositing a catalyst material on the surface of the metamaterial, the nanogap is formed between the metal wall surface and the catalyst layer inside the metal nanoslot due to the step difference of the metal nanoslot (nanogap is formed between the electrode surface and the sensor unit 3 protrusion 32 inside the nanoslot 4 due to step difference of the nanoslot 4).
Woo et al. do not teach forming a protective layer protecting the catalyst layer on the catalyst layer. However, Seo et al. teach hydrogen sensor comprising sensing layer 230 covered with protective layer 250 to protect the sensing layer from external contaminants (page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Seo et al. teaching to form a protecting layer on the catalyst/sensor unit 3 of Woo et al. because the protection layer protect the sensor unit from external contaminants.
Claim 9. Woo et al. teach the step of manufacturing the metamaterial is a step of manufacturing the metamaterial by forming the metal nanoslot on the wafer through a photolithography process (photolithography process is used to form nanoslot by forming sacrificial layer; see page 5).
Claim 10. Woo et al. teach the step of forming the catalyst layer is a step of forming a catalyst layer forming a nanogap inside the metal nanoslot by depositing a catalyst material on the surface of the metamaterial through a thermal evaporator (vapor deposition method which inherently use heat to form the vapor is used to deposit sensor unit 3; see claim 6; pages 8-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 4-5 of remarks that no dedicate nanogap formation is required, as the nanogap formation is inseparable from the catalyst layer deposition. Applicant also further argues cited prior art, Woo et al. discloses forming first and sacrificial layers 5 and 6 to form the nanogap and does not mention any structural relationship between a step difference of the nanogap 4 and the formation of a gap between the protrusion 32 and electrode coated on the substrate 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., nanogap formation is inseparable from the catalyst layer deposition and structural relationship between nanogap and formation of a gap between the protrusion of sensor unit 3 and electrode) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on page 5 of remarks, nanogap of Woo function as a gap that must be fully bridged by physical contact between the sensor unit 3 and the electrode to detect hydrogen, however applicant discloses hydrogen can be detected without any physical contact between the catalyst layer 150 and wall surface of the metal 120.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., hydrogen can be detected without any physical contact between the catalyst layer 150 and wall surface of the metal 120) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 GURPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7895. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/GURPREET KAUR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights