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 1-4 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2022/0199884).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a graphene thermoelectric device comprising:
a substrate (201);
a graphene channel layer (303) formed on the substrate (201) (see fig. 6, para [0083]-[0088]) and including doped graphene (see abstract and para [0090]); and
a first electrode (301) and a second electrode (301) formed on both ends of the graphene channel layer (shown in fig. 6, see para [0088]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses a graphene thermoelectric device of claim 1, wherein the graphene channel layer is obtained by doping half or full area of the graphene channel layer (shown in fig. 2 and 6, wherein in fig. 6 the entire channel is doped with one dopant) (see para [0083]-[0090]), which reads on selectively doping a full area of the graphene channel.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (Chemically doped graphene based ternary field effect transistors).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses a graphene thermoelectric device of claim 1, wherein the graphene channel layer is doped n-type (see para [0083]-[0090]).
Wang does not disclose the doped n-type channel is doped with polyethyleneimine (PEI).
Kim is analogous art to Wang as Kim discloses doped graphene to form a p-n junction in electronics (see abstract). Kim discloses polyethyleneimine as an n-type dopant for graphene (see page 1, 2nd column, under Experimental Methods; also page 2, both columns, under Results and Discussion).
The Courts have held that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a known material (i.e., PEI), which is based upon its suitability for the intended use (as an n-type dopant for graphene), is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses a graphene thermoelectric device of claim 1, wherein the p-type thermoelectric channel (305) is a p-type organic polymer (see para [0091]).
Wang does not disclose wherein the p-type channel is a graphene channel layer doped with p-type polyacrylic acid (PAA). Wang does disclose graphene as a suitable thermoelectric material (see discussion of claims 1-3).
Kim is analogous art to Wang (see discussion claim 3). Kim discloses a p-type graphene channel doped with p-type polyacrylic acid (PAA) as the p-type leg of a p-n junction (see page 1, column 2, Experimental Method; also page 2, Results and Discussion).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (a p-type PAA doped graphene channel in a p-n junction with n-doped graphene) as taught by Kim) for another known device (i.e., a p-type organic polymer channel in a p-n junction with n-doped graphene as disclosed by Wang), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., a thermoelectric device as disclosed by Wang).
Alternatively, the Courts have held that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a known material (i.e., PEI as a graphene dopant as taught by Kim and graphene as a thermoelectric material as taught by Wang), which is based upon its suitability for the intended use (as a p-type doped graphene channel in a graphene p-n junction), is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. An et al. (Doping of graphene with polyethyleneimine and its effects on graphene- based supercapacitors).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights