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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 21-24, and 26-32 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.
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite a first planar surface comprising a PTFE configured with an abraded surface, and argued that the prior art cited in the previous Office Action does not teach the amended limitation. After reviewing the previously cited prior art, the Examiner has removed references to Yanagimachi et al., and Martiniz-Rubi et al., as Applicants arguments have been found to be persuasive. However, after performing an updated search, the Examiner has now cited references to Grinstaff et al., (US 2016/0033383) and Aizenberg et al., (US 2014/0187666). Because these references are newly cited, the Examiner will not argue the merits of their teachings here, but will instead rely on the rejection detailed below. As such, the claims are not in condition for allowance.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
For claim 27, the phrase “separated concentration regions” is unclear as the claim does not describe where the concentrator regions are located. For example, it is unclear if the concentrator regions are located on the claimed first planar surface, or the second planar surface. Also, it is unclear what the concentrator regions are separated from, as the claim does not recite any structural elements from which the concentrator regions are separated. Finally, the term “region” is sufficiently broad so as to read on the entirety of the first or second planar surfaces as the term “region” is not defined in the claim.
For claims 28 and 29, the Examiner notes that the terms “about” and “approximately” are not indefinite as the specification defines approximate, and about to mean plus or minus ten percent (paragraph 00109).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 27, the phrase “separated concentration regions” is unclear as the claim does not describe where the concentrator regions are located. For example, it is unclear if the concentrator regions are located on the claimed first planar surface, or the second planar surface. Also, it is unclear what the concentrator regions are separated from, as the claim does not recite any structural elements from which the concentrator regions are separated. Finally, the term “region” is sufficiently broad so as to read on the entirety of the first or second planar surfaces as the term “region” is not defined in the claim.
For claim 31, the phrase “the processor is further compute the aggregated area” is unclear and appears to be a typographical error. As such, the Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim as the phrase in question is unclear and incomplete.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1,3,6-7,21-24,26-29 and 32is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grinstaff et al., (US 2016/0033383) in view of Bishop et al., (US 2005/0186118).
Regarding claim 1, Grinstaff et al., teach a sensor comprising a support (second planar surface, paragraph 0091, figure 5 #9), and a sensor material comprising PTFE having a high roughness (first planar surface, paragraphs 0046, 0047, 0100). Grinstaff et al., also teach superhydrophobic materials exhibit a contact angle greater than 150° (paragraph 0097). Grinstaff et al., do not teach a support comprising a metallic heating element.
Bishop et al., teach a chemical concentrator comprising a heater coupled to a substrate (paragraph 0025, figure 1 #28). Bishop et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide a heater coupled to a substrate as a means of increasing the evaporation rate of a fluid so as to increase the concentration of an analyte in the fluid (paragraph 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Grinstaff et al., to include a heater coupled to the support in order to increase evaporation of a fluid to increase the concentration of an analyte in the fluid as taught by Bishop et al.
Regarding claims 3 and 32, Grinstaff et al., teach the sensor comprising roughened PTFE (paragraphs 0046, 0047, 0100). The Examiner notes that because the reference teaches roughened PTFE, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the contact angle hysteresis to be identical to that of the claim.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Grinstaff et al., do not teach first and second electrical leads in contact with the heating element, nor do they teach a battery device coupled to the first and second leads.
Bishop et al., teach first and second electrical leads in contact with the heating element (paragraph 0025). Bishop et al., also teach an electronic controller (battery device, paragraph 0025) coupled to the first and second electrical leads wherein the electronic controller supplies electric current to the electric terminals (paragraph 0025). With respect to claim 7, the examiner notes that the claim does not recite any structural elements of the battery device, thus the Examiner contends that it is reasonable to read the electronic controller taught by the prior art as the claimed battery device. Bishop et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide multiple electrical leads and an electronic controller as a means of maintaining a fluid at a desired temperature (paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Grinstaff et al., to include first and second electrical leads and an electronic controller in order to maintain a fluid at a desired temperature as taught by Bishop et al.
Regarding claims 21, 22, and 24, Grinstaff et al., teach a PTFE film identical to that of the instant claims (paragraph 0046, 0047, 0100). Grinstaff et al., also teach the sensor exhibiting a change in color due to wetting (paragraphs 0011, 0024, 0027, 0028). The Examiner notes that the phrase “configured for” does not denote a structural element of the PTFE film, but instead describes how the PTFE film us utilized.
Regarding claim 23, the Examiner notes that the target solute is not a structural element of the device, but instead represents the material worked upon by the claimed device (MPEP 2115). As such, the target solute is not given patentable weight in the claim.
Regarding claim 26, Grinstaff et al., do not teach a metallic heating element.
Bishop et al., teach a chemical concentrator comprising a heater coupled to a substrate (paragraph 0025, figure 1 #28). The Examiner notes that the phrase “configured to” does not indicate a structural element as the claim does not recite a configuration that generates the function recited in the claim. As such, the heater taught by Bishop et al., is capable of performing the functional language recited in the claim. Bishop et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide a heater coupled to a substrate as a means of increasing the evaporation rate of a fluid so as to increase the concentration of an analyte in the fluid (paragraph 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Grinstaff et al., to include a heater coupled to the support in order to increase evaporation of a fluid to increase the concentration of an analyte in the fluid as taught by Bishop et al.
Regarding claim 27, the Examiner notes that the claim is being read in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in which the claimed “separated concentrator regions” is unclear. As such, the Examiner contends that the metallic heating element taught by the combination of Grinstaff et al., in view of Bishop et al., meets the claim limitations in that the prior art heating element comprises a shape.
Regarding claim 28, Grinstaff et al., in view of Bishop et al., do not explicitly teach a metallic layer being about 1mm thick; however, the Examiner is reading this limitation as a change in size/proportion which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP states that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, the claimed device is not patentable distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A). Grinstaff et al., in view of Bishop et al., teach a heater having a metallic layer, thus the prior art heater does not function differently from the heating element recited in the claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Grinstaff et al., in view of Bishop et al., wherein the metallic layer is about 1mm thick as changes in size/proportion require only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 29, Grinstaff et al., do not teach heating the PTFE layer to 75°C.
Bishop et al., teach a chemical concentrator comprising a heater coupled to a substrate (paragraph 0025, figure 1 #28) wherein the heater is capable of heating the substrate to 75°C (Figures 5 and 6). Bishop et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide a heater coupled to a substrate as a means of increasing the evaporation rate of a fluid so as to increase the concentration of an analyte in the fluid (paragraph 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Grinstaff et al., to include a heater coupled to the support in order to increase evaporation of a fluid to increase the concentration of an analyte in the fluid as taught by Bishop et al.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grinstaff et al., (US 2016/0033383) in view of Bishop et al., (US 2005/0186118) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al., (US 2019/0381862).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Grinstaff et al., in view of Bishop et al., do not teach a heating element comprising nickel and disposed between and in contact with two layers.
Kim et al., teach a heating device comprising a heating element comprising nickel (paragraph 0127). Kim et al., also teach the heating element disposed between, and in contact with two separate layers (paragraph 0127, figures 9 and 10 #212). The Examiner is reading this combination as applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Reference to Kim et al., teach that heating elements may comprise nickel, and be disposed between and in contact with two separate layers, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from the teachings of Kim et al., to utilize a heating element comprising nickel placed between two separate layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Grinstaff et al., in view of Bishop et al., to utilize a heating element comprising nickel as taught by Kim et al., as applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 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.
Claim 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a sensor device comprising a processor configured to compute a concentration of heavy metal ions based on an aggregated area of an abraded surface of a PTFE film covered by dried particles as recited in claim 30. Additionally, the prior art does not teach or suggest a processor identifying a number of pixels in an image corresponding to an abraded surface of a PTFE film as recited in claim 31.
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 DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DWAN A GERIDO/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights