DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, and 16-21 are currently pending. Claim 21 has been added.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said electrodes” in line 2 of claim 21 should read as “said at least one electrode”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. ‘653 (US Pub No. 2013/0052653 – previously cited) in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 (US Pub No. 2013/0211213) further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 (US Pub No. 2008/0261450 – previously cited) further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 (US Pub No. 2020/0155247 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Stein et al. ‘653 teaches a diagnostic sensor device (Title, Abstract) comprising:
a planar substrate (Fig. 8B surface 812 and [0288]);
said planar substrate comprising a distal end (The leftmost side of the surface 812 is interpreted as the distal end.) that engage with a USB connector at an interface ([0288]; “The structure 810 includes at least one surface 812…” The structure 810 engages with a the USB connector, or connector 822.); and
at least one sensor exposed on a surface of the planar substrate (Fig. 8B sensor 818 and [0288]) to measure an analyte ([0282]; “the presence of the analyte alone will cause the sensor to generate a signal”).
Stein et al. ‘653 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the planar substrate is a monolithic semiconductor integrated circuit without packaging.
DeHennis et al. ‘213 teaches sensors 110 that may be monolithically formed in a semiconductor substrate 116 using a complimentary CMOS process (Fig. 1A and [0056]). It is also noted that the substate 116 is its own entity, as the substrate 101 comes with no packaging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the planar substrate of Stein et al. ‘653 to include being a monolithic semiconductor integrated circuit without packaging as DeHennis et al. ‘213 teaches that this will aid in providing communication paths between various secured components ([0055]).
Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for said planar substrate comprising a distal end and pads on the distal end of the planar substrate that engage with corresponding conductors of a socket of a USB connector at an interface having engagement pads configured to overlap and engage with the pads, wherein the interface contacts that engage as a male part of the USB connector.
Nguyen et al. ‘450 teaches a planar substrate (Figs. 15, 19, 21 PCB assembly 49 and [0117]) comprising a distal end (Left side of PCB assembly 49) and pads on the distal end of the planar substrate (plurality of contact fingers 13 and [0117]) that engage with corresponding conductors of a socket of a USB connector at an interface (metal case 46 and [0117]) having engagement pads configured to overlap and engage with the pads (Fig. 23 shows that the plurality of fingers 13 overlap with PCB support tray 48), wherein the interface contacts that engage as a male part of a USB connector (Fig. 3 shows that the mental case 46 acts as a male part of a USB connector.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified said planar substrate of Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 to include comprising a distal end and pads on the distal end of the planar substrate that engage with corresponding conductors of a socket of a USB connector at an interface having engagement pads configured to overlap and engage with the pads, wherein the interface contacts that engage as a male part of the USB connector as Nguyen et al. ‘450 teaches that this will aid in improving the manufacturing and assembly of existing USB flash drives ([0009]).
Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the at least one sensor is at least one capacitive sensor.
Rogers et al. ‘047 teaches a diagnostic sensor device that includes sensors that may comprise one or more high sensitive electrodes configured to measure a change in an electrical parameter such as capacitance or resistance ([0079]-[0080], [0384]; One of ordinary skill would understand that sensors that monitor capacitance is a capacitor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one sensor of Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 to be at least one capacitive sensor as Rogers et al. ‘047 teaches that this will create a device that can measure and characterize properties of biofluids in a manner that is versatile and can be tailored to a wide range of applications ([0006]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Wang et al. ‘541 (US Pub No. 2016/0095541 – previously cited) further in view of Kumar et al. ‘529 (International Pub No. WO 2016/038529 – previously cited) and Wagstaff ‘380 (US Pub No. 2017/0354380 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the pads engage with a female portion of the USB connector.
Kumar et al. ‘529 teaches wherein the pads engage with a female portion of the USB connecter (The insertion portion 203, as seen in Fig. 5, is a female portion of the housing 201, interpreted as a USB connector.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pads of Stein et al. ‘653 in view of Kumar et al. ‘529 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 to include engaging with a female portion of the USB connector as Kumar et al. ‘529 teaches that this will aid in collecting and retaining the biological sample for subsequent testing ([071]).
Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 further in view of Kumar et al. ‘529 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the pads comprise 12 pads with a pad pitch of 0.5 mm.
Wang et al. ‘541 teaches wherein the pads comprise 10 pads (Fig. 2A shows connector region 218 has 10 conductors 211.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pads of Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 further in view of Kumar et al. ‘529 to comprise twelve pads as taught by Wang et al. ‘541 as the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of Parts).
Wang et al. ‘541 teaches the microneedle array strip system 200 can be configured on a FFC sized to be 11 mm by 38.1 mm ([0077]). As mentioned above, the conductors 211 are modified to be 12 conductors instead of 10. If the FFC is sized to be 11 mm, then each conductor would be 0.45 mm, or rounded to be 0.5 mm (The total length of connector region 218 is 11 mm. The conductors 211 are represented as the black bars and the gap between each conductor 211 is represented as a gray bar. Assuming the gray bar and black bar are even, there will be 24 equal pieces on connector region 218. Thus, 11 mm/24 = 0.458 mm).
Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 in view of Kumar et al. ‘529 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the USB connector being a USB-C connector.
Wagstaff ‘380 teaches that a communication port may include interfaces such as USB, USB-C, lightening connector, micro-USB and the like ([0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the USB-C port for the USB of Kumar et al. ‘529 as Wagstaff ‘380 teaches that any kind of interface may be used as a communication port as simple substitution of one known element (USB-C) for another (USB) would obtain predictable results (communication).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Gottlieb et al. ‘605 (US Pub No. 2014/0135605 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047, as applied to claim 1, teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the device comprises a layer of hydrophobic material which is etched to form an exposed sensing region for the at least one capacitive sensor, and wherein the hydrophobic material comprises polyimide.
Gottlieb et al. ‘605 teaches a sensor 100 that comprises a cover layer 106 which is made of a polymer coating such as silicone compounds or polyimides, which are hydrophobic materials. Apertures 108 are formed on cover layer 106 through etching to expose electrodes to analytes (Fig. 2 cover layer 106, apertures 108 and [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diagnostic sensor of Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047, as applied to claim 1, to include a layer of hydrophobic material was Gottlieb et al. ‘605 teaches that this would create a device that has components that provide electrically insulating protective properties ([0086]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kumar et al. ‘529 and Heo ‘029 (US Pub No. 2014/0192029 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein said USB connector is a 12-pin Universal Serial Bus (USB).
Kumar et al. ‘529 teaches wherein the pads engage with a female portion of the USB connecter (The insertion portion 203, as seen in Fig. 5, is a female portion of the housing 201, interpreted as a USB connector.).
Heo ‘029 teaches connectors may be a 7-pin type connecter, 12-pin type connector, 20-pin type connector, 24-pin type connector, a USB, a micro USB, which are widely used ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the 12-pin type connector of Heo ‘029 for the USB of Kumar et al. ‘529 as Heo ‘029 teaches that these different kinds of connectors are widely used for connection of devices.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Freschi et al. ‘692 (US Pub No. 2017/0086692 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the device is diced from a semiconductor wafer.
Freschi et al. ‘692 teaches a die, which is a portion of a semiconductor wafer, e.g., an integrated circuit that has been cut or “diced” from a larger semiconductor wafer. Dies are typically extremely compact due to the expense of manufacturing a semiconductor wafer—it is desirable to include as many dies as possible in a wafer to reduce the cost per die. Due to the small size and fragility of dies, however, they are typically packaged in a larger container before being sold to electronics manufacturers. Such containers are referred to as “semiconductor packages,” and may, for example, feature a substrate having various electrical interconnects that may be soldered to electrical interconnects on the semiconductor die, e.g., through wire bonding or other connection method ([0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047, as applied to claim 1 to be diced from a semiconductor wafer as Freschi et al. ‘692 teaches that this will aid in reducing the cost per die and soldering to electrical interconnects.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kumar eta l. ‘529 and Wagstaff ‘380.
Regarding claim 10, Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the USB connector is a USB-C connector.
Kumar et al. ‘529 teaches wherein the pads engage with a female portion of the USB connecter (The insertion portion 203, as seen in Fig. 5, is a female portion of the housing 201, interpreted as a USB connector.).
Wagstaff ‘380 teaches that a communication port may include interfaces such as USB, USB-C, lightening connector, micro-USB and the like ([0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the USB-C port for the USB of Kumar et al. ‘529 as Wagstaff ‘380 teaches that any kind of interface may be used as a communication port as simple substitution of one known element (USB-C) for another (USB) would obtain predictable results (communication).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Macfarlane ‘240 (US Pub No. 2012/0169240 – previously cited).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047, as applied to claim 1, teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the at least one capacitive sensor comprise the three capacitive sensors resolve to at least femto-Farad resolution or atto-Farrad resolution.
Macfarlane ‘240 teaches a PLL circuit could resolve around 1 femto-farad to detect movement. A microcontroller can be used to sense capacitances down to atto-farads to adjust to differing static capacitances ([0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the three capacitive sensors of Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 to include resolving to at least femto-Farad resolution or atto-Farrad resolution as Macfarlane ‘240 teaches this will aid in adjusting to differing static capacitances ([0089]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 further in view of Gupta et al. ‘021 (US Patent No. 9,597,021 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 19, Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047, as applied to claim 1, teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the monolithic semiconductor integrated circuit comprises one or more CMOS converter circuits.
Gupta et al. ‘021 teaches a device to measure concentrations of glucose and glycated hemoglobin and other blood constituents. A ring containing a CMOS array and laser diode may be placed on a subject’s finger or smartwatch. The CMOS array and laser diode may be integrated into a remote receiver 702 (Fig. 7 and Column 6 Lines 12-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the monolithic semiconductor integrated circuit of Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 to include one or more CMOS converter circuits as Gupta et al. ‘021 teaches that this will aid in measuring concentrations of glucose and glycated hemoglobin and other blood constituents.
Regarding claim 20, Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 further in view of Gupta et al. ‘021, as applied to claim 19, teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the one or more of the CMOS converter circuits extends beneath the at least one capacitive sensor.
The Applicant fails to recite the criticality of the arrangement of the CMOS converter circuits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one or more CMOS converter circuits of Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 further in view of Gupta et al. ‘021 to include extending beneath the at least one capacitive sensor as the court held that the arrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Rearrangement of parts).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 further in view of Limaye et al. ‘056 (US Pub No. 2016/0089056).
Regarding claim 21, Stein et al. ‘653 teaches wherein said planar substrate is a wafer (Fig. 8B surface 812 and [0296]). Stein et al. ‘653, as modified by DeHennis et al. ‘213 teaches wherein said at least one capacitive sensor is formed from a top metal layer of the substrate ([0056]).
Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein said at least one capacitive sensor comprise at least one electrode.
Limaye et al. ‘056 teaches touch sensitive devices are known in the art in which an electrode in the device acts as the charge plate of a capacitor ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one capacitive sensor of Stein et al. ‘653 in view of DeHennis et al. ‘213 further in view of Nguyen et al. ‘450 further in view of Rogers et al. ‘047 to include at least one electrode is Limaye et al. ‘056 teaches that it is known in the art for an electrode to act as a capacitor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. It is noted that the language “without packaging” is interpreted as “not being part of a larger entity.” The substrate 116 of DeHennis et al. ‘213 is interpreted as “without packaging” as the substrate 116 is its own entity and not cut from a larger entity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791