Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/433,015

FLUORESCENCE TIME DECAY SENSING APPARATUS AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING SAME

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 23, 2021
Priority
Mar 01, 2019 — provisional 62/812,843 +1 more
Examiner
WILEY, DAVID ARMAND
Art Unit
2100
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Osensa Innovations Corp.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
40%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 40% of resolved cases
40%
Career Allowance Rate
4 granted / 10 resolved
-15.0% vs TC avg
Strong +67% interview lift
Without
With
+66.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
8 currently pending
Career history
17
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§103
76.5%
+36.5% vs TC avg
§102
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 10 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/21/2025 has been entered. Claim Objections Claim 78 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 16 should be amended to recite “…[[an]] inorganic oxygen containing filler powder…”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 83 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 18 should be amended to recite “…[[an]] inorganic oxygen containing filler powder…”. Appropriate correction is required. 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(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The prior rejections of Claims 44-86 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are overcome by amendment. Claims 66-67, 91-92, and 94-96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 66 recites the limitation "the inorganic filler powder". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 67 recites the limitation "the inorganic filler powder". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 91 recites the limitation "the inorganic oxygen containing filler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 92 recites the limitation " the inorganic oxygen containing filler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 94 recites the limitations “The use” and "the inorganic oxygen containing filler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 95 recites the limitations “The use” and "the inorganic oxygen containing filler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 96 recites the limitations “The use” and "the inorganic oxygen containing filler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 94 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 94 merely recites the same features as Claim 44, from which Claim 94 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 93 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Djeu (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0276506). Regarding Claim 93, Djeu teaches use of an inorganic oxygen containing filler as a stabilizer of a fluorescence response of a fluorescent sensor element for measuring a parameter of an object (column 4, lines 61-67, temperature sensing tip (4) includes oxygen). Allowable Subject Matter Independent Claim 44, and dependent Claims 45-49, 51-54, 56-58, 67-77, 80-82, and 84-90 are allowed. Claims 66-67 and 91-92 are allowable pending addressing of the 112(b) rejections. Independent Claims 78 and 83 are allowable pending addressing of the claim objections. Although there are no prior art rejections for claims 94-96, the Examiner cannot comment on the allowability of Claims 94-96 until the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112 are satisfactorily addressed. Regarding independent Claim 44, the Claim features a “fluorescent sensor element for measuring a parameter of an object, with a predetermined time-decay characteristic of a fluorescence response and stabilized fluorescence response, the fluorescent sensor element comprising: a polycrystalline solid composition, consisting of a solidified: phosphor powder of doped host material, comprising a host material doped with a dopant, the phosphor powder providing the fluorescence response by absorbing an excitation light and emitting an emission light, the fluorescence response having a time-decay characteristic indicative of the parameter of the object; and inorganic oxygen containing filler powder, which provides additional oxygen ions to the phosphor powder, sufficient for preserving a charge of ions of the dopant that are responsible for stabilizing the fluorescence response and reducing a drift and hysteresis of the measuring; wherein the polycrystalline solid composition is formed by mixing the phosphor powder and the inorganic oxygen containing filler powder into a mixture, followed by at least one of depositing and pressing the mixture into a green body, and further solidifying the green body into the polycrystalline solid composition” were not found in the prior art. It is noted that both the phosphor powder and the inorganic filler powder are solidified. Further, the polycrystalline solid composition only contains the solidified phosphor powder and the inorganic filler powder; there are no other elements in the polycrystalline solid composition. Claims 45-49, 51-54, 56-58, 68-77 and 87-90 are allowed due to their dependence on Claim 44. Independent Claims 78 and 83 recite similar features to Claim 44, and are allowable for the same reasons, pending addressing of the claim objections. Claims 80-82 and Claims 84-86 are allowed due to their dependence on Claims 78 and 83. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/21/2025 regarding the amendments to independent Claims 44, 78, and 83 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of these Claims and their dependent Claims are withdrawn. Applicants arguments regarding new Claim 94, on page 15 of the Arguments, are incorrect, because Claim 94 is not an independent Claim. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am to 4pm. 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, Lisa M Caputo can be reached on (571)272-2388. 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. CYNTHIA L. DAVIS Examiner Art Unit 2863 /C.L.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 2863 /LISA M CAPUTO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 23, 2021
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112
Jul 28, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 23, 2024
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112
Feb 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112
Apr 02, 2025
Response Filed

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
40%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+66.7%)
3y 9m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 10 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month