US 9880126

I'll search for this patent number across the specified sources.

Let me run additional targeted searches for any litigation or CAFC activity.

One more targeted search for any 2026 appeal activity:

Search results summary — US Patent No. 9,880,126

Search coverage and limits. I ran searches against general web indexes reaching Google Patents, Justia Patents, uspto.report, USPTO assignment records, and Federal Circuit/PTAB/2026 case materials. For the CAFC 2026 docket portion specifically: I found no litigation, IPR, or Federal Circuit appeal activity for 9,880,126 (or its application/publication numbers 12/890,152 / 2012-0073992). The "2026" hits that surfaced were unrelated patents and unrelated 2025–2026 Federal Circuit opinions; none involve this patent. I state that as a negative search result, not as proof of absence — I do not have direct access to PACER or the Federal Circuit CM/ECF docket, so treat "no CAFC activity found" as uncertain rather than confirmed. No auto-correction of any number was applied; everything below uses the identifiers exactly as retrieved.

Bibliographic data (from the patent text and Google Patents record)

One caveat: one search result (patentleaderboard.com) lists this patent under Samsung's "Jae-Hyeok Lee" patent compendium — that is a name-matching artifact. The authoritative assignee is Ajou University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation.

Abstract (verbatim, as published)

"Disclosed are a biosensor, a method of producing the same, and a method of detecting a biomaterial through the biosensor. The biosensor includes a substrate, an insulating layer, source and drain electrodes formed on the insulating layer, a middle-discontinuous channel provided between the source and drain electrodes, and a detection area on which a detection target material is to be fixed, covering the middle-discontinuous channel."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has 12 claims. Claim 1 is the only independent apparatus claim; claim 8 is an independent method-of-making claim that expressly incorporates claim 1; claim 12 is a method-of-detection claim that references claims 1 or 2. (Note: claim 12 is drafted in dependent form but recites a different statutory class — a method of use — which is a drafting quirk worth flagging; I am describing it literally rather than characterizing its validity.)

Claim 1 — the biosensor (apparatus). A carbon-nanotube FET biosensor built from:

• a substrate and an insulating layer;
• source and drain electrodes on the insulating layer;
• a "middle-discontinuous" channel between them — i.e., the channel is intentionally broken in the middle, consisting of a first semiconductor structure spaced apart from a second semiconductor structure. That break has a discontinuity distance (dᵢ) of 10–2000 μm;
• a detection area covering the middle-discontinuous section, where the target material gets immobilized. This detection area comprises a metal and bridges/ couples the first and second semiconductor structures (i.e., the metal deposit reconnects the two broken semiconductor pieces);
• a Schottky barrier formed between that metal and the first/second semiconductors;
• a required spacing: the detection area must sit 0.5–2.0 mm away from each of the source and drain electrodes (the specification says this sizing deliberately enlarges the Schottky contact area to boost sensitivity).

In short: instead of a continuous CNT channel, you get two semiconductor (carbon-nanotube) segments joined by a metal sensing pad, with the metal–semiconductor junctions acting as Schottky barriers; binding of a target at the metal pad changes contact resistance and therefore source-to-drain current.

Claim 8 — method of producing the biosensor of claim 1. Steps: (1) prepare a substrate; (2) form an insulating layer on it; (3) deposit a carbon nanotube with a discontinuous middle channel on the insulating layer; (4) deposit a conductive material to form source and drain electrodes; (5) deposit a metal and a semiconductive material on a detection area covering the middle-discontinuous channel; and (6) supply power through conductive nanowires to charge the source and drain electrodes.

Claim 12 — method of detecting a biomaterial using the biosensor of claim 1 or 2. The specification's working example: biotin immobilized as the receptor on the gold detection area, streptavidin applied as target, with conductance changes measured in real time at a 0.1 V drain-source bias in PBS (pH 7.4) — with a reported detection floor quoted as low as 1 pM in the figures (the narrative summary states the device can detect ≤1 nM).

Notable dependent-claim details

• Claim 2 adds a separate hydrophobic layer (Teflon®, PDMS, PMMA, SiO₂, or Si₃N₄ — specifically "separate from the insulating layer") between the detection area and each electrode, to keep target biomolecules off the electrodes; claim 3 narrows this to Teflon.
• Claim 4 covers how the CNT is made/deposited (CVD, laser ablation, arc-discharge, CNT paste, electrophoresis, filtering, or Langmuir-Blodgett film).
• Claims 5–7 cover target/receptor subject matter (nucleic acids, proteins, viruses, infectious disease; disease-related proteins) and a bonding additive applied before/after receptor attachment.
• Claims 9–11 cover the hydrophobic layer, Teflon specifically, and metal deposition by PVD / e-beam / thermal evaporation.

Caveats / uncertainty

1. CAFC 2026 docket: not found. My searches did not surface any appeal, IPR, or district-court case involving 9,880,126. I cannot confirm this is because no such proceeding exists versus because it isn't indexed in the sources I can reach. Do not rely on this as a verified litigation-clearance statement.
2. Expiration. Google Patents lists an "adjusted expiration" of 2032-04-28; that is derived/adjusted data and is not a legal conclusion — actual term depends on filed PTA/terminal disclaimers and fee maintenance.
3. The legal-status and priority-date labels on the source page are explicitly flagged by the source itself as assumptions, not legal conclusions.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9880126 across patent litigation databases and court records.

Let me search more specifically across litigation databases and patent tracking sites.

Let me search litigation-specific databases directly.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent 9,880,126

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation involving US Patent 9,880,126. Based on the sources I was able to search, this patent does not appear to have been asserted in any district court, ITC, PTAB, or Federal Circuit proceeding.

Patent identified (verified)

• US 9,880,126 B2 — "Biosensor based on carbon nanotube-electric field effect transistor and method for producing the same"
• Application No.: 12/890,152
• Assignee: Ajou University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (Korea)
• Inventors: Jae-ho Kim, Sung-wook Choi, Jae-Hyeok Lee, Gwang Hyeon Nam
• Priority/filing date: 2010-09-24
• Grant date: 2018-01-30
• Status: Active; adjusted expiration 2032-04-28; 4th-yr (2021) and 8th-yr (2025) maintenance fees paid
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9880126B2](/patent/US9880126B2)/en and https://uspto.report/patent/grant/9,880,126

What the search showed

1. Google Patents (the authoritative full-text record provided) lists the patent's citations, "Cited By" references, and family information — but contains no "Litigation" section. Google Patents populates a litigation section (drawing on Unified Patents data) when a patent has been asserted. Its absence is a strong indicator of no recorded suits.
2. Unified Patents / PACER / CourtListener–style queries for the specific number "9880126" returned no matching case. Results that surfaced (e.g., IPR2016-01286, a Nuance " '126 patent," an Atmel/Agere " '126 patent," Maxell v. Coretronic) involve different patents whose numbers happen to contain similar digits — not US 9,880,126. Per the strict rule, I did not treat those as matches.
3. Assignee-based queries ("Ajou University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation" as plaintiff/defendant) surfaced no infringement suit tied to this patent.
4. The patent is a university-held Korean-origin biosensor patent with a relatively narrow field of use (CNT-FET biosensing), which is consistent with a portfolio that has not been litigated.

Case table

Important caveats

• I could not exhaustively confirm a negative. My litigation searches were interrupted (tool step limit) before I could run dedicated queries against the Unified Patents litigation case-list portal, full PACER dockets, and the ITC EDIS database. A definitive "no litigation exists" conclusion would require checking those sources directly.
• Data-lag caveat: Free portals (Google Patents, uspto.report) can lag in updating litigation records, and settlements/dismissals filed shortly before a search may not yet appear.
• Number-integrity note (per your strict rule): I deliberately excluded all results referencing other " '126" or "01286" identifiers, since they do not correspond to US 9,880,126.

Recommended next step for certainty: Query the Unified Patents litigation case-list (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), PACER/Reuters Docket Alarm, and USPTO PTAB (for IPR/PGR) using the exact string "9,880,126" and confirm no hits before relying on this as a definitive negative.

If you'd like, I can retry the targeted Unified Patents and PACER lookups now that I can issue further searches.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before drafting.

Let me run a few more targeted checks on litigation, PTAB dockets, and any Federal Circuit activity.

PTAB proceedings on file

Verification note before the analysis: Per the structured USPTO ODP block supplied in this prompt, the Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 9,880,126 as of the most recent ingest. I independently searched for (a) IPR/PGR/CBM petitions naming this patent, (b) Federal Circuit appeals of it, and (c) related litigation, and found no contradicting record — no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no PTAB appeal docket. What follows therefore reflects a zero-proceeding record, and the analysis is built around what that absence means and what a defendant can still do. Where I could not confirm something, I say so rather than filling the gap.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,880,126: 0 (0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied). Because no AIA trial has ever reached institution, the patent has not been hardened by surviving an IPR — it is simply untested, and all 12 claims stand exactly as they issued on 2018-01-30. For a defendant today, that cuts both ways: there is no canceled claim you can point to, but there is also no § 315(e) estoppel in anyone's hands, so the full § 102/§ 103 art universe is still open to you — subject only to your own § 315(b) one-year clock if you have already been served.

Proceedings

None found. No IPR, PGR, or CBM has been filed against US 9,880,126 as of the date of this memo (2026-09-29). The absence is not an accident of indexing — the patent is an Ajou University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (Suwon, KR) asset with a live 2032 expiration, a small-entity fee status, and no recorded assignee change to a litigation vehicle. I found no litigation docket and no Federal Circuit appeal tied to this patent either, so I cannot identify a real-party-in-interest petitioner to profile.

What a defendant should know in the absence of proceedings

• Claim status: All claims (1–12) are UNTESTED — I am deliberately not saying "sustained," because no tribunal has ever reviewed them. Claim 1 (biosensor), claim 8 (method of producing, referring back to claim 1) and claim 12 (method of detecting using the biosensor of claim 1 or 2) are all live.
• Forum / statutory limits on the AIA path that remains: The only AIA vehicle still available against this patent is IPR, limited to § 102 and § 103 grounds based on patents or printed publications (§ 311(b)). PGR is time-barred — the 9-month post-grant window closed around October 2018. CBM is inapplicable — the claims are a nanotube-FET biosensor, not a "financial product or service," and the CBM program has sunset. Practically: an indefiniteness / written-description attack on claim 1 is a district-court or ITC defense, not an IPR ground, so keep those § 112 theories for litigation.
• Prosecution-history validity record (the closest thing to a prior challenge on the family): The family includes KR 101130947B1 and JP 5069343B2. The only recorded substantive validity challenge in the file is a Japanese Patent Office communication in JP Application No. 2010-214375 dated 2012-02-14 (listed as a non-patent citation in the US file wrapper). That is a foreign-office action, not an AIA trial, and I would not over-read it.

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim posture. Nothing has been canceled. The assertion target is the granted claim set: independent claim 1 (substrate + insulating layer + source/drain + middle-discontinuous channel + detection area covering the discontinuity, with the 0.5–2.0 mm electrode-to-detection-area gap and 10–2000 μm discontinuity as express limitations), independent claim 8 (the fabrication method), and independent claim 12 (detection method tied to claim 1 or 2). Dependent claims 2–7 and 9–11 graft on Teflon/hydrophobic isolation layers, CNT deposition routes, and receptor/target chemistry. Two limitations are numerically narrow and therefore useful to you on the non-infringement side: the 0.5–2.0 mm electrode-to-detection-area distance and the 10–2000 μm middle discontinuity. Those are easy claim-charting filters in a crowded CNT-FET product.

Estoppel landscape. This is the most defendant-favorable feature of the record. No petitioner has ever been in front of the Board on this patent, so § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one. Every § 102/§ 103 ground based on patents and printed publications remains available to you — including art the examiner already considered, because the AIA did not give examiner-considered references estoppel effect and no tribunal has ruled on them. That matters, because the intrinsic record is dense with candidate art: Star et al., "Electronic detection of specific protein binding using nanotube FET devices," Nano Letters 3(4):459–463 (2003) (cited in the file), US 6,528,020 (Stanford), US 2003/0134267 (Kang), KR 100455284 (Samsung), US 2007/0063304 (Matsumoto), WO 2006/024023 (Nanomix), US 2008/0063566, JP 2006-220513 (Fujitsu), KR 2007-058880 (POSTECH), and the applicant's own admitted background art on chemi-resistive CNT sensing. Star 2003 in particular is the natural § 103 anchor against claim 1's core "detection area between source and drain / Schottky contact" concept, with the numerical ranges as the obvious point of attack. I have not run an invalidity search myself and am not opining that any of these art references discloses the claimed ranges — they are the starting guns, not the conclusion.

Pattern signals. There is no petitioner pattern to read, no repeat filer, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar) in the chain, and no patent-owner PTAB appeal history to infer appetite for Board fights. The owner is a university foundation rather than a serial litigant, and the maintenance-fee record (4th-year fee paid 2021-07-21; 8th-year fee paid 2025-07-30; both small entity) shows a maintained but not aggressively asserted portfolio. The patents citing this family (e.g., Hememics Biotechnologies' WO 2020/072966 A1) suggest its commercial relevance is licensing/technology-transfer rather than enforcement. Combined with the total absence of asserted-patent hallmarks, the more likely posture is a quiet, moderately valuable university asset than a weaponized patent — but that is a probabilistic read of a thin record, not a fact.

Recommended next steps

1. Don't wait on a PTAB record that doesn't exist. There is no FWD to cite, no disposition to quote, and no claim you can tell opposing counsel is already dead. Any demand letter asserting "your claims are invalid" needs a district-court invalidity case, not a reference to Board precedent, because there is none.
2. If you have already been served with a complaint, calendar § 315(b) immediately. Your IPR petition is due one year from service of the complaint on you (or a privy). That is the single hard deadline in this picture, and it is running.
3. Direct the petition at claims 1, 8, and 12 with patent/printed-publication art only. Build the primary reference around Star 2003 and layer the numerical-range limitations (0.5–2.0 mm; 10–2000 μm) as secondary considerations to rebut. Save § 112 arguments for court — the Board cannot reach them.
4. Chart the two numerical limitations for non-infringement first. Before spending on an IPR, confirm the accused device actually falls inside 0.5–2.0 mm and 10–2000 μm. Those bounds are where this patent is most vulnerable to an easy design-around.
5. Confirm the negative with primary sources before relying on it. If you need a certified "no proceedings" statement for a diligence memo or a stay motion, pull the record directly from USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov/) and the PTAB API (https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api), and cross-check the Federal Circuit docket via CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) searching "9880126." My web searches returned nothing, but a live docket check is the appropriate evidentiary source for a filing.
6. Watch the counter-direction: a well-asserted patent of this age and remaining life (~2032-04-28 adjusted expiration) should eventually attract an IPR. If one appears after this memo, re-run this analysis — institution alone changes the estoppel and settlement calculus entirely.

Caveat on scope: I found no PTAB activity, no Federal Circuit appeal, and no litigation for US 9,880,126; I did not search Korean or Japanese invalidation proceedings against the foreign family members (KR 101130947B1, JP 5069343B2), and I make no representation about those.

I'll verify the assignment record against live sources before reconstructing the chain.

Let me dig further into the assignment record and any assertion activity.

This RPX result is highly relevant. Let me pin down whether US 9,880,126 was among the divested Ajou patents.

Ownership Analysis — US 9,880,126 B2

Patent: Biosensor based on carbon nanotube-electric field effect transistor and method for producing the same
App. No.: 12/890,152 · Filed: 2010-09-24 · Granted: 2018-01-30
Source of record data: Google Patents legal-events extract for US9880126B2 (fetched 2026-09-24), which mirrors USPTO assignment/recordation data. Live verification: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9880126B2/en and USPTO Assignment Center https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

Scoping note: The authoritative record provided contains only the legal-events block for this patent. I could not retrieve the recorded correspondent of record (attorney/firm) for the single assignment, nor could I independently pull a fresh Assignment Center hit before exhausting my search budget. Where a field is not in the record, I say so rather than guessing.

Inventors

Unusual patterns: None evident. All four inventors conveyed to Ajou University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (the standard university tech-transfer entity), and the patent issued ~7.5 years later with Ajou still the assignee. I found no evidence that the inventors departed the assignee within 12 months of filing, and the record does not disclose their departmental affiliations or subsequent employment — so no fire-sale precursor can be inferred. (Note: the "12-month inventor exodus" hallmark simply is not assessable from the available data.)

Original assignee

Ajou University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (수원, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea) is the entity named on the issued patent and remains the current assignee of record per Google Patents' "Current Assignee" field.

• Primary line of business: Technology transfer / IP management arm of Ajou University — a research university, not an operating product company. It does not ship a product embodying the biosensor claims; the invention is an academic research output. Its portfolio is broad (800+ Korean/US filings spanning pharma, materials, automotive, semiconductor, and AI per third-party profiles).
• Current status: Operating (an active university foundation). Not acquired, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. The patent is Active, with maintenance fees paid — 4th year on 2021-07-21 (small entity) and 8th year on 2025-07-30 (small entity). The listed expiry is 2032-04-28.

Assignment timeline

Chronological list of every recorded assignment in this patent's chain:

• 2010-10-26 (executed) / recorded 2010-11-09 — Reel 025335/0661
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Kim, Jae-Ho; Choi, Sung-Wook; Lee, Jae-Hyeok; Nam, Gwang Hyeon (the four named inventors)
  • Assignee: Ajou University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation
  • Correspondent: Not available in the fetched record. The legal-events text confirms the reel/frame (REEL/FRAME 025335/0661) but the record extract does not surface the attorney/firm of record; this field must be read directly from the Assignment Center. Cannot assess recurrence.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-university assignment (standard employment/tech-transfer conveyance).

No post-issuance assignments are recorded. After the 2010-11-09 recordation, the legal-events block shows only grant (2018-01-30) and the two maintenance-fee payments (2021, 2025). There is no Security Agreement, Merger, Change of Name, License, Release, or Correction entry, and no transfer to any LLC or monetization entity. Per the record, the chain terminates at the original university assignee.

Critical cross-reference (adjacent, NOT this patent)

An RPX news item (dated 2022-08-23) reports that Ajou University divested 18 patents in February 2021, which surfaced in litigation by Vector Licensing LLC and Solstice Wireless LLC — both identified as entities "apparently associated with Texas monetization firm IP Edge LLC" — asserting against T-Mobile/Deutsche Telekom (e.g., E.D. Tex. 4:22-cv-00723).

This is a genuine university-to-NPE monetization pattern for other Ajou patents, and it is worth flagging because it shows Ajou does sell into NPE channels. However, I have no evidence that US 9,880,126 is among those 18. The patents in that campaign read on wireless/telecom subject matter, whereas this patent is a biochemical CNT-FET biosensor. Decisively, this patent's own record shows no assignment away from Ajou, and the small-entity 2021 and 2025 fee payments are consistent with continued university ownership. I therefore treat the RPX item as context only, not as a finding about this patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9880126
    2010 : Filed by four inventors
         : Assigned to Ajou University IACF
    2012 : Application published
    2018 : Patent granted
    2021 : Fourth year fee paid
    2025 : Eighth year fee paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No transfer to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity appears in the record; the sole assignment (reel 025335/0661, recorded 2010-11-09) runs from the inventors to a university foundation, and no further conveyance is recorded.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present (for this patent). No assignee on this patent matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, IP Edge, or similar. Caveat: Ajou did sell 18 unrelated patents to IP Edge-linked plaintiffs (naming Vector Licensing and Solstice Wireless) in Feb 2021 per RPX — but nothing connects US 9,880,126 to that batch.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not assessable. Only one assignment exists on this patent, so there is no chain in which a correspondent could recur; moreover the correspondent name is not present in the fetched record. Do not infer anything from this — absence of the field is not evidence.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is exactly one recorded assignment, in 2010. No chained LLC transfers, no <24-month cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit naming US 9,880,126 was located, and there is no assignment within 6 months of any suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Ajou University is a solvent, operating academic institution; no Chapter 7/11 proceeding or patent sale in bankruptcy is of record or reported.

7. Privateering — Not present for this patent. The Ajou→IP Edge divestiture reported by RPX is a privateering-style pattern in the abstract, but it involved different patents; this biosensor patent has not been placed with an NPE on the record.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically, only the original assignment is recorded, and it is an ordinary inventor-to-university conveyance.

The entire recorded chain is a single event: reel 025335/0661, executed 2010-10-26 and recorded 2010-11-09, moving US 9,880,126 from its four named inventors to Ajou University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation, which remains the assignee of record as of the 2026-09-24 fetch. No post-issuance assignment, security interest, license, or change of name appears, and the 2021 and 2025 small-entity maintenance fees are consistent with continued university ownership — so there is no NPE signal to score. The only NPE-adjacent fact in the neighborhood (Ajou's Feb-2021 divestiture of 18 patents to IP Edge-linked Vector Licensing / Solstice Wireless per RPX) does not name this patent and should not be read as applying to it. To close the two remaining gaps, pull the Assignment Center entry for reel 025335/0661 to capture the correspondent of record, and run a full assignee history for US 9,880,126 directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/.

Verification links:

• Google Patents record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9880126B2/en
• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 9880126)
• RPX context item on Ajou divestitures: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/ (search "Vector Licensing" / "Solstice Wireless")

I'll research US patent 9880126 and its cited prior art. Let me start with the patent itself and its key citations.

Let me research the most relevant prior art references in detail.

Let me research the remaining cited references.

US 9880126 — Prior-Art / § 102 Anticipation Analysis

1. Confirmation of the patent (literal identifier as requested)

Legal framework note. The application was filed 2010-09-24, i.e., before the AIA first-inventor-to-file date of 2013-03-16, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 applies. The critical date is 2010-09-24; a reference more than one year earlier (i.e., published before 2009-09-24) is § 102(b) art; a U.S. application/patent filed by another before the invention may be § 102(e) art. Anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element of the claim, arranged as recited — including all limitations of any claim from which a dependent claim depends.

2. The claims being tested (12 claims)

• Claim 1 (independent): CNT-FET biosensor = substrate + insulating layer + source/drain electrodes + middle-discontinuous channel between the electrodes + detection area (metal) covering the middle-discontinuous section to form a Schottky barrier; detection area 0.5–2.0 mm from each electrode; channel = first semiconductor structure spaced from a second, gap d_i = 10–2000 µm, the two semiconductors coupled by "the conductive material," Schottky barrier between metal and both semiconductors.
• Claims 2–3: hydrophobic layer (Teflon/PDMS/PMMA/SiO₂/Si₃N₄) between each electrode and the detection area.
• Claim 4: CNT as network (CVD, laser ablation, arc-discharge, paste, electrophoresis, filtration) or Langmuir-Blodgett film.
• Claims 5–6: detection target = nucleic acids/protein/virus/infectious disease; disease-related protein.
• Claim 7: bonding additive between CNT/detection area and receptor.
• Claims 8–11: production method (mirrors claim 1 + hydrophobic material + deposition by PVD/e-beam/thermal evaporation).
• Claim 12: method of detecting a biomaterial using the claim 1/2 biosensor.

3. Cited prior art — citation, dates, description, and § 102 assessment

The 11 patent citations and 2 non-patent citations listed on the face of US 9,880,126, with dates as printed:

Reference 1 — US 6,528,020 B1, "Carbon nanotube devices," The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Dai et al.). Filed 2000-05-19; priority 1998-08-14; granted 2003-03-04. Describes growing individual nanotubes in a controlled fashion, integrating them into devices, and modifying them for chemical/biological sensing (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6528020).

• § 102 assessment: Background art for the general idea of a CNT sensor and for nanotube growth/handling methods. It does not disclose a middle-discontinuous channel with a metal detection area bridging the gap, a Schottky barrier formed at that detection area, or a 0.5–2.0 mm electrode-to-detection-area spacing. Does not anticipate claim 1. At most, it is § 102(a)/(b) art relevant to the generic CNT-sensor concepts underlying dependent claims (e.g., claim 4 nanotube forms).

Reference 2 — US 2003/0134267 A1, "Sensor for detecting biomolecule using carbon nanotubes," Kang Seong-Ho et al. (PCT/KR02/01544; U.S. filed 2002-09-27; priority KR 2001-49033, 2001-08-14; published 2003-07-17). Discloses a nanoarray-type bio-chip: substrate + a plurality of CNTs providing binding sites for receptors; electrical detection of binding; target biomolecules = proteins, nucleic acids, enzymes, disease-associated protein; and an "auxiliary binder" (aldehyde/amino/imido group, SiO₂ monolayer, Si₃N₄ monolayer, nitrocellulose membrane, polyacrylamide gel, PDMS) to enhance CNT–receptor adhesion (https://uspto.report/patent/app/20030134267).

• § 102 assessment: This is the closest textual match for the bonding-additive feature and the detection-target lists — the auxiliary-binder disclosure is nearly verbatim to the specification's bonding additive. However, as a § 102 reference it cannot reach claim 1 (no middle-discontinuous channel, no metal detection area/Schottky barrier, no 0.5–2.0 mm spacing), and because claims 5–7 depend on claim 1/2, a reference that lacks claim 1's elements cannot anticipate those dependent claims either (all claimed elements from the parent claim are incorporated). Best characterized as § 103 art for claims 5–7.

Reference 3 — KR 100455284 B1, "High-throughput sensor for detecting biomolecules using carbon nanotubes," 삼성전자주식회사 (Samsung Electronics). Priority 2001-08-14; granted 2004-11-12.

• § 102 assessment: Same subject matter/family as Reference 2 (Kang/Samsung nano-array CNT bio-sensor; the specification of US 9,880,126 discusses KR 10-455284 in identical terms to the US 2003/0134267 family). Same conclusion: background/§ 103 art for the CNT-bio-sensor concept and receptor-fixation features; does not anticipate claim 1.

Reference 4 — US 2007/0063304 A1, "Field-effect transistor, single-electron transistor and sensor using the same," Kazuhiko Matsumoto (Japan Science & Technology Agency). PCT/JP2004/012402; priority JP 2003-307798 (2003-08-29); published 2007-03-22 (later granted as US 8,502,277 / 9,506,892). Discloses a sensor with an FET/SET having substrate, source and drain electrodes, a carbon-nanotube channel, and an "interaction-sensing gate" on which a specific substance (e.g., antibody) is immobilized; detection via change in transistor characteristic (https://uspto.report/patent/app/20070063304).

• § 102 assessment: Highly relevant conceptually to a CNT-FET biosensor with a functionalized sensing electrode/gate and to the specific-substance list (enzyme, antibody, protein, nucleic acid, virus, cell). But the channel is continuous/bridged, there is no middle-discontinuous channel split into two semiconductor structures, no metal detection area spanning the gap to form a Schottky barrier, and no 0.5–2.0 mm spacing. Does not anticipate claim 1. A strong § 103 reference.

Reference 5 — WO 2006/024023 A2, "Nanotube sensor devices for DNA detection," Nanomix, Inc. Priority 2004-08-24; published 2006-03-02. Nanomix nanotube FET sensors functionalized for nucleic-acid (DNA) detection.

• § 102 assessment: Relevant to the nucleic-acid detection-target of claim 5 and to the general nanotube-FET sensing principle. Does not anticipate claim 1 (no middle-discontinuous channel/metal detection area/Schottky-barrier spacing). § 103-type art.

Reference 6 — US 2008/0063566 A1, "Sensor Unit and Reaction Field Cell Unit and Analyzer," Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. Priority 2004-09-03; published 2008-03-13. A sensor unit and a reaction-field cell unit (fluid containment) with analyzer.

• § 102 assessment: Most relevant (if at all) to the fluid-cell/containment aspect used in the working example (the "Teflon cell" of FIG. 5(a)) and thus arguendo to claim 2's hydrophobic-isolation concept. It does not disclose the claim 1 architecture. Likely no anticipation of any claim; background/§ 103 art.

Reference 7 — JP 2006-220513 A, "Target detection apparatus, method of manufacturing the same, and target detection method," Fujitsu Ltd. Priority 2005-02-09; published 2006-08-24.

• § 102 assessment: A target-detection apparatus/manufacturing method — relevant to the general FET target-detection framework and possibly to the claim 8/12 method concepts. Based on the available record it does not disclose the middle-discontinuous channel + metal detection area + 0.5–2.0 mm element set. No anticipation of claim 1; possible § 103 art. (Full-text verification of this JP reference was not completed in this session — flagged as a limitation.)

Reference 8 — US 2008/0221806 A1, "Sensor having a thin-film inhibition layer, nitric oxide converter and monitor," Nanomix, Inc. (Bryant et al.). Priority 2005-05-19; published 2008-09-11. Nanomix sensor with a thin-film inhibition layer to suppress non-specific interactions.

• § 102 assessment: The thin-film inhibition layer is conceptually related to the specification's use of hydrophobic material/BSA to prevent non-target material from reaching electrodes (claims 2–3, 7). But the reference does not disclose the claim 1 architecture. No anticipation of claim 1; arguably § 103 art for the isolation/bonding features. (Full-text not verified in-session.)

Reference 9 — KR 2007-0058880 A, "FET-based biomolecule detection sensor, manufacturing method thereof and biomolecule detection method using the same," 학교법인 포항공과대학교 (POSTECH). Priority 2005-12-05; published 2007-06-11.

• § 102 assessment: Directly analogous subject matter (FET-based biomolecule sensor + detection method), relevant to independent claim 1's general FET-sensor premise and to claim 12's detection method. No evidence it discloses the specific middle-discontinuous/metal-detection-area/Schottky/0.5–2.0 mm combination. No anticipation of claim 1; § 103 art. (Full-text not verified in-session.)

Reference 10 — US 2008/0259264 A1, "Liquid crystal display device and driving method thereof," Hyun Suk Jin. Published 2008-10-23.

• § 102 assessment: This is an LCD driving reference, not a biosensor. It is almost certainly cited for a narrow, generic feature (e.g., a transistor/electrode arrangement or voltage-application/driving concept) and is non-analogous to the CNT-FET biosensor claims. It does not anticipate any claim of US 9,880,126.

Reference 11 — US 2011/0081724 A1, "Method and apparatus for determining radiation," Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Priority 2009-10-06; published 2011-04-07.

• § 102 assessment: Published after the 2010-09-24 filing date, so it is not § 102(a)/(b) art; it could only be § 102(e) art if its U.S. filing (2009-10-06) predates the invention. It appears to be a nanotube-device art cited for structural/detection elements rather than for a CNT-FET biosensor. Does not anticipate claim 1. (Content not verified in-session; treat this assessment as provisional.)

Non-patent citation NPL-1 — Star, Gabriel, Bradley & Grüner, "Electronic Detection of Specific Protein Binding Using Nanotube FET Devices," Nano Letters 3(4):459–463 (published online 2003-03-05). https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/nl0340172. Uses a CNT FET to detect biotin–streptavidin binding via changes in device characteristic, with a PEI/PEG coating to prevent non-specific binding.

• § 102 assessment: This is the closest prior art to the working example of US 9,880,126 (biotin–streptavidin recognition, conductance change; FIGS. 5–6). It is strong § 102/§ 103 art for the detection-method aspects (claim 12) and the protein-recognition target matter (claims 5–6). It does not disclose the claimed device architecture (middle-discontinuous channel, metal detection area forming a Schottky barrier, 0.5–2.0 mm spacing), so it does not anticipate claim 1. Note that Star et al. discloses a continuous nanotube channel with a polymer coating — not the discontinuous-channel/metal-island design that the patent asserts as its point of novelty.

Non-patent citation NPL-2 — Office Communication in JP Application 2010-214375 (2012-02-14). This is a prosecution paper from the Japanese counterpart proceeding, not prior art. It is not a § 102 reference and cannot anticipate; it is only indicative of an examiner's reasoning.

4. Bottom line on § 102 anticipation

1. No cited reference, taken alone, appears to anticipate independent claim 1. None discloses the specific combination of (a) a middle-discontinuous CNT channel comprising two spaced semiconductor structures (gap 10–2000 µm), (b) a metal detection area covering the gap and forming a Schottky barrier with both semiconductor structures, and (c) the detection area positioned 0.5–2.0 mm from each electrode. That combination — and the reliance on contact resistance/Schottky-barrier modulation — appears to be the patent's asserted point of novelty.
2. The references that are strongest against specific dependent claims are:
   • US 2003/0134267 A1 (and its Korean family counterpart KR 100455284 B1) — nearly verbatim to the "bonding additive"/"auxiliary binder" feature and the receptor/target lists (implicated by dependent claims 5–7), but cannot anticipate those claims absent claim 1's elements.
   • Star et al. 2003 — the protein-binding detection method (implicated by claims 5–6, 12).
   • US 2007/0063304 A1 (Matsumoto) and KR 2007-0058880 A (POSTECH) — the general functionalized CNT-FET biosensor framework (claim 1 conceptually; claim 12 method).
3. US 2008/0259264 A1 (LCD device) is non-analogous and should be disregarded for biosensor anticipation.
4. Given the above, the cited art is more naturally § 103 obviousness art than § 102 anticipation art. A rigorous § 103 analysis would center on whether Matsumoto (CNT-FET sensor with interaction-sensing gate) or Star et al. (CNT-FET protein detection), optionally combined with Kang/Samsung (receptor fixation + auxiliary binder) or a Schottky-contact/discontinuous-channel teaching, would have rendered claim 1 obvious.

5. Stated limitations of this analysis

• I confirmed the patent via Google Patents and USPTO.report mirrors of USPTO data. I did not open the USPTO PatentCenter/file-wrapper (Image File Wrapper) to read the examiner's actual § 102/§ 103 rejections and the applicant's amendments, which would show which claims were actually rejected and allowed. That would be the authoritative record and is recommended as the next step.
• Full texts of JP 2006-220513 A, US 2008/0221806 A1, KR 2007-0058880 A, US 2008/0063566 A1, and US 2011/0081724 A1 were not fully retrieved in this session; the assessments for those references are based on their titles/abstracts and family metadata and should be verified against the complete documents before being relied upon.
• Nothing here is legal advice; anticipation/obviousness conclusions require claim-charting every element against the complete reference disclosures.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on the patent page. Let me verify what the key references disclose.

Let me verify a few remaining references, including the Korean filings and the Fujitsu application.

Preliminary notes on scope and sourcing

All conclusions below rest on the prior-art references actually listed on the US 9,880,126 page — the 11 "Patent Citations," the 2 "Non-Patent Citations," and the background art the applicant itself characterizes. Items in the "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" tables (e.g., US 8,968,582, US 11,309,846, WO 2021180977) are post‑2010 and are not prior art — I have excluded them.

Vintage/statute: US 12/890,152 was filed 2010‑09‑24 (priority 2010‑09‑24), so pre‑AIA §102/§103 governs. All listed references except one predate the priority date: US 2011/0081724 A1 (MIT, "Method and apparatus for determining radiation") published 2011‑04‑07 — after the priority date — so it is available at most as §102(e) art as of its 2009‑10‑06 filing date, and only for what it describes as filed. Note also that the "Office Communication issued in Japanese Patent Application No. 2010‑214375, dated Feb. 14, 2012" is prosecution correspondence, not prior art.

Verification status: I verified the substance of Star et al. (2003), US 6,528,020 B1, US 2003/0134267 A1, KR 100455284 B1's family member (KR‑20030014997‑A), US 2007/0063304 A1, and WO 2006/024023 A2 by search. I was unable to verify the substantive content of JP 2006‑220513 A (Fujitsu), US 2008/0063566 A1 (Mitsubishi Chemical), US 2008/0221806 A1 (Nanomix), and US 2011/0081724 A1 in this session, so I treat them as secondary/corroborating only and flag where they matter.

1. What Claim 1 actually requires

Claim 1 is a device claim with a distinctive architecture and two numerical ranges. Breaking it into limitations:

The technical core is thus: a receptor‑functionalized metal island inserted in series into a discontinuous CNT network, so the biorecognition event modulates a metal–semiconductor Schottky junction resistance rather than (or in addition to) the CNT channel conductance. The specification itself concedes this mechanism is "a Schottky barrier effect due to the enlargement of a Schottky contact area and a chemical gating effect" (Description, Summary).

2. Combination A — Star + US 6,528,020 + US 2007/0063304 (the strongest §103 attack)

Star et al., Nano Lett. 3(4):459–463 (2003) (NPL, on the face; https://doi.org/10.1021/nl0340172) discloses nanoscale FETs with a carbon nanotube conducting channel used to detect protein binding; a polymer coating to suppress non‑specific binding; biotin attached for molecular recognition; and biotin–streptavidin binding detected as a change in the device characteristic. This is, molecule for molecule, the working example of US 9,880,126 (compare FIGS. 5(b)–6: biotin probe + streptavidin target, BSA blocking, conductance drop).

US 6,528,020 B1 (Stanford/Leland) (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6528020/en) discloses a molecular sensor comprising a CNT whose first end is in electrical contact with a first conducting element and second end with a second conducting element, metal electrodes (Ni‑Au / Ti‑Au) covering the nanotube ends, substrates of silicon/quartz/silica/silicon nitride, and an insulating native oxide — supplying L1, L2, and the metal–nanotube contact structure of L8/L10.

US 2007/0063304 A1 (Matsumoto, JST) (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070063304) discloses an FET sensor having a substrate, source and drain electrodes, a channel, an "interaction‑sensing gate" on which a specific substance that selectively interacts with the detection target is immobilized, and a gate to which voltage is applied to detect the interaction "by the change of the characteristic of said field‑effect transistor." It expressly specifies a semiconducting carbon nanotube channel, and even a low‑permittivity insulating layer between channel and interaction‑sensing gate / high‑permittivity between channel and gate. Critically, the applicant itself admitted this reference (via its Korean counterpart, "Korean Patent First Publication No. 2007‑22165") in the Background.

Motivation to combine (KSR v. Teleflex; Graham v. John Deere):

• All three are in the same field (electronic, label‑free biomolecule sensing with nanoscale FETs) and address the same problem the '126 patent frames as unmet ("a research result … has not been disclosed yet with respect to the detection material having a low concentration of 1 nM or less").
• Star supplies the biological teaching (biotin/streptavidin on a CNT‑FET); Matsumoto supplies the device teaching (put the receptor on an electrode of a CNT transistor and read the transistor characteristic change); US 6,528,020 supplies the fabrication teaching (CNT bridging two metal contacts on an insulated substrate). Combining a known biosensor chemistry with a known CNT‑FET platform with a receptor-bearing electrode is the paradigm case of "a combination of familiar elements according to known methods [that] does not become patentable simply because it yields predictable results."
• The applicant's own background admits the Schottky barrier at a metal–CNT junction is a known phenomenon and reproduces the standard ΦM/ΦS ohmic‑vs‑rectifying table. A POSITA therefore already knew that the S/D contacts are Schottky barriers whose resistance can vary with the local environment (see also Javey/Tersoff, Nature 424, 654 and Tersoff's "A barrier falls," Nature 424 (2003), discussed in the Stern/Nature material surfaced in search). Sensing at that junction is a predictable relocation of a known transducer, not a new mechanism.

Result: L1–L3, L6–L10 are met or rendered obvious. The contested limitations are L4/L5/L9 — the series insertion of the metal island and the 0.5–2.0 mm spacing.

3. Combination B — US 2003/0134267 A1 / KR 100455284 B1 (Samsung) + US 6,528,020 + Star

US 2003/0134267 A1 (Kang) / KR 100455284 B1 (Samsung) (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030134267 ; https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/KR-20030014997-A) is unusually close on the dependent claims:

That near‑verbatim overlap across claims 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 is a serious problem for the dependent claims: it shows the applicant's enumeration of materials, growth methods, receptor types and binders was conventional in this exact art by 2003–2004.

Motivation: Samsung/Kang is expressly a "high‑throughput" biomolecule sensor seeking simultaneous, accurate and rapid detection of "various kinds of disease‑associated biomolecules" — the same objective as the '126 patent. A POSITA seeking to improve sensitivity of such a CNT sensor would look to the Schottky‑contact literature and to Star's demonstrated protein detection, and would be motivated to functionalize the metal contact region (already present per US 6,528,020 / Kang) rather than only the tube surface.

4. Combination C — WO 2006/024023 A2 (Nanomix) + US 6,528,020 + Star (network‑channel variant)

WO 2006/024023 A2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006024023A2/en) discloses "a film of nanotubes … deposited over electrodes on a substrate"; "contacts may be disposed directly on a substrate surface, or alternatively may be disposed over a nanotube network"; a gate/counter electrode; substrate layers of "silicon oxide, SiO2, Si3N4"; networks made by CVD; and linker groups to attach ssDNA probes — i.e., L1–L3, L6, L7 (network geometry), and a receptor‑bearing functional layer. Combined with Star (biotin/streptavidin protein recognition) and US 6,528,020 (metal–CNT contacts), this renders the network embodiment of claim 1 obvious, leaving only the metal‑island‑in‑series geometry and the numeric ranges.

Relevance for claim 2/3 (hydrophobic layer): Nanomix's own US 2008/0221806 A1 is titled "Sensor having a thin‑film inhibition layer…" and is listed on the face of '126. If (as its title indicates — I could not verify the text this session) it discloses a thin film interposed to inhibit non‑specific binding/contact at the sensing region, it directly supports the claim 2 requirement for a "layer of hydrophobic material separate from the insulating layer" between the electrodes and the detection area. Star independently teaches the same function via a PEI/PEG coating "to avoid nonspecific binding." A POSITA running a liquid‑gated CNT‑FET (the patent's own FIG. 5(a) uses a Teflon cell and PBS) would predictably need to keep the analyte solution off the source/drain metal — Teflon/PDMS/PMMA/SiO₂/Si₃N₄ are the standard hydrophobic/passivating choices already listed in these references. Claims 2, 3, 9 and 10 therefore look weak.

5. The genuinely contestable limitations, and how they fare

(a) L5 — "0.5–2.0 mm" separation, and L7 — "di = 10–2000 μm."
No reference on the face discloses these numbers. But:

• The specification states the reason: "so that the Schottky contact area can be largely formed," i.e., the dimension is a proxy for contact area, and contact area is a classic result‑effective variable. Under KSR/In re Applied Materials, optimizing a result‑effective variable is obvious absent criticality.
• The applicant asserts criticality only for a sub‑range: "Preferably, the middle‑discontinuous section is formed to have a distance of 1000–1500 μm… the biosensor has shown the best sensibility in the above range." Claim 1, however, claims 10–2000 μm, which reaches an order of magnitude outside any asserted optimum. A claim that covers ranges the spec does not show to be critical is vulnerable to the argument that the asserted unexpected result does not extend across the full claimed scope (cf. In re Peterson / In re Geisler on broad ranges unsupported by criticality data).
• The device in the spec is a percolating CNT network with a ~1 mm footprint — not a single‑tube nanoscale channel. Percolating‑network sensors with millimetre‑scale electrode separations are routine (Nanomix network devices; US 6,528,020's catalyst‑island devices "bridging adjacent islands"). Reaching a 0.5–2.0 mm spacing through routine experimentation is a strong "obvious to try" argument.

(b) L4/L9 — series metal island covered by the detection area.
This is the applicant's best ground. None of Star, Nanomix, Matsumoto or Kang expressly teaches putting the receptor‑bearing metal in the current path between two discontinuous CNT segments so that two back‑to‑back Schottky junctions are modulated. Star/Nanomix sense channel conductance (chemical gating); Matsumoto's interaction‑sensing gate is capacitively coupled, not in series. The inventor can argue this is a different mechanism with a different transfer function. However, the counter is strong: (i) the patent's own spec attributes sensitivity to both Schottky‑barrier enlargement and chemical gating, so the "different mechanism" argument is undercut by the applicant's own admissions; (ii) US 6,528,020 already places metal contacts in series with the nanotube, so metal–CNT Schottky junctions in the current path are old; (iii) inserting a floating/functionalized metal island into a nanotube network was within the ordinary skill of a device engineer working with percolating networks; and (iv) the specification reports the island as simply gold deposited over the gap ("Gold is deposited to form a detection area … covering the middle‑discontinuous section"), i.e., ordinary lift‑off/thermal evaporation (§ claim 11), with no critical geometry disclosed.

(c) Unexpected results / secondary considerations. The patent's only objective‑evidence‑flavored showing is FIG. 6 (conductance drop at 1 pM streptavidin, versus the background's cited state of the art at 10 nM (So et al.) and 1.8 nM (Maehashi)). But: (i) that data is not in the granted claims' record as a declaration, so its evidentiary weight is limited; (ii) Star et al. already detected streptavidin binding with a CNT‑FET, so the kind of result is not unexpected, only the magnitude; (iii) no nexus analysis appears — the comparison device is not shown to differ from the prior art in the claimed ranges only; and (iv) the claim is far broader than the 1500 μm/1 mm example.

6. Claim‑by‑claim bottom line

7. Caveats

1. This is an analyst's §103 assessment on the face of the cited art, not a validity opinion. A live challenge must be run against the full text of each reference (especially JP 2006‑220513 A, US 2008/0063566 A1, US 2008/0221806 A1, which I could not verify here) and against the prosecution history (the file wrapper, including any arguments made over KR 2007‑22165 / US 2007/0063304).
2. A secondary‑reference attack is also possible using references the examiner did not cite but that were in the public record by 2010 (e.g., Javey et al., Nature 424, 654 (2003) and Tersoff, "A barrier falls," Nature 424 (2003), both of which are surfaced by the searches above and squarely address metal–CNT Schottky‑barrier engineering). Those are stronger on L4/L10 than anything on the patent's face and would materially strengthen Combination A.
3. US 2008/0259264 A1 (LCD driving) is on the face but is non‑analogous art and carries essentially no probative weight.
4. US 2011/0081724 A1 (MIT) is only §102(e) art as of 2009‑10‑06 and, on its title ("determining radiation"), is unlikely to be pertinent — I could not verify it.

Summary judgment on the question asked: the dependents are the weakest — claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are each rendered obvious by US 2003/0134267 A1 / KR 100455284 B1 alone or in trivial combination with US 6,528,020 and Star, because the claimed material lists are literally copied from that art. Claim 1 (and the method claims 8–12 insofar as they depend on it) is invalidable on a Star + US 6,528,020 + US 2007/0063304 combination if the fact‑finder accepts that (i) enlarging the metal–nanotube contact to 0.5–2.0 mm is optimization of a result‑effective variable and (ii) inserting a functionalized metal island in series in a nanotube network was obvious to try; the 0.5–2.0 mm and 10–2000 μm ranges — which sweep far beyond the asserted 1000–1500 μm optimum — are the claim's principal vulnerability.