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 .
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.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 19-20, 24-26, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19-20, 24-26, and 28 are method claims and should be rewritten as such:
Claim 19: “wherein the transmitted signal received back from the second channel is utilized to evaluate a property of the object’ should be written as ‘evaluating a property of the object using the transmitted signal received back from the second channel’. This similarly applies to claims 20 and 28
Claim 24: “wherein the property of the tissue is utilized to…” should be written as “utilizing the property of the tissue to...”. This similarly applies to claims 25-26
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 (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 1, 6, 8, 11, 14-15, 18-20, 24-26, 28, and 34 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a circular shape”, and the claim also recites “a circle” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Circular shape appears to be broader than circle as circle is considered structural due to circle being a noun and circular shape is merely descriptive due to circular being an adjective. It is also unclear whether ‘a circular shape at the first opening’ is meant to refer to the first opening having a form of an circle, or if there is another structure that has a circular shape placed at/near the first opening. It would appear ‘a circular shape at the first opening’ should read ‘the circle of the first opening’.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “an elliptical shape”, and the claim also recites “an ellipse” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Elliptical shape appears to be broader than ellipse as ellipse is considered structural due to ellipse being a noun and elliptical shape is merely descriptive due to elliptical being an adjective. It is also unclear whether ‘an elliptical shape at the second opening’ is meant to refer to the second opening having a form of an ellipse, or if there is another structure that has an elliptical shape placed at/near the second opening. It would appear ‘an elliptical shape at the second opening’ should read ‘the ellipse of the second opening’.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “a circular shape”, and the claim also recites “a circle” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Circular shape appears to be broader than circle as circle is considered structural due to circle being a noun and circular shape is merely descriptive due to circular being an adjective. It is also unclear whether ‘a circular shape at the first opening’ is meant to refer to the first opening having a form of an circle, or if there is another structure that has a circular shape placed at/near the first opening. It would appear ‘a circular shape at the first opening’ should read ‘the circle of the first opening’.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “an elliptical shape”, and the claim also recites “an ellipse” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Elliptical shape appears to be broader than ellipse as ellipse is considered structural due to ellipse being a noun and elliptical shape is merely descriptive due to elliptical being an adjective. It is also unclear whether ‘an elliptical shape at the second opening’ is meant to refer to the second opening having a form of an ellipse, or if there is another structure that has an elliptical shape placed at/near the second opening. It would appear ‘an elliptical shape at the second opening’ should read ‘the ellipse of the second opening’.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the at least two adjacent channels" in Line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the at least two channels’
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 14 (and subsequently their respective dependents) would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Leibfritz et al. (US 2011/0077509) in view of Meaney et al. (US 2016/0313260).
While Leibfritz in view of Meaney disclose a transmission dielectric probe with two adjacent channels, having two openings, one reference having a circular opening the other an elliptical opening, they do not disclose the shapes of the openings, diameters of the openings, shapes of the channels as in the claimed invention. The claimed invention's design allows for a specific surface penetration depth which as noted through the Affidavit filed 01/26/2026 provided unexpected results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could not combine the Leibfritz and Meaney reference without the benefit of hindsight reasoning. This distinguishes the claimed invention over the prior art and allows for a deeper penetration depth of a transmission dielectric probe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM EST.
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, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights