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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted for examiner consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 26, “ertering” should read “entering”. 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 1-2 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.
Claim 1 contains the trademark/trade name “Triton X-100” in lines 7 and 10. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe Octylphenol Ethoxylate, Polyethylene glycol p-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)-phenyl ether, or Octoxynol-9 and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 1 also recites an “HT-DC300 dip coater” in line 20. The term appears to be a model number corresponding to a specific commercial instrument. However, the specification does not describe the HT-DC300 dip coater, identify its manufacturer or provide any structural or operational characteristics of the device. Because the claim relies on this undefined term, it is unclear what specific apparatus or characteristics are required and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting the “HT-DC300 dip coater” as a generic dip coater.
Claim 1 also recites “FC/PC-BGUV1000/1100-0.6” in line 21 and in Claim 2 line 3. The term appears to be a model number or a catalog designation for a specific optical fiber. However, the specification does no describe this optical fiber, define the meaning of the designation, identify the manufacturer, provide structural compositional nor optical properties of the fiber. It is unclear what specific optical fiber is required for the claims. The metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty and the claims are indefinite. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “FC/PC-BGUV1000/1100-0.6” as a generic sensing optical fiber.
Claim 1 also recites “LD light source” in line 25. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what “LD” means; the specification does not list the meaning of the acronym. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “LD light source” as light source.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over anticipation by Chu et al. (Ratiometric fiber-optic oxygen sensors based on sol–gel matrix doped
with metalloporphyrin and 7-amino-4-trifluoromethyl coumarin) in view of McEvoy et al. (Dissolved Oxygen Sensor Based on Fluorescence Quenching of Oxygen-sensitive Ruthenium Complexes Immobilized in Sol-Gel-derived Porous Silica Coatings) in further view of Bae et al. (US 2012/0153229 A1), and McDonagh et al. (Characterisation of porosity and sensor response times of sol-gel derived thin films for oxygen sensor applications).
Regarding claim 1, Chu teaches a manufacturing method of an optical fiber chemical ratiometric sensor measurement system for measuring underwater dissolved oxygen concentration, comprising the following steps:
Step 1, mixing ethyl silicate/TEOS and n-octyltriethoxysilane to prepare a precursor solution, adding guaranteed reagent absolute ethyl alcohol/EtOH and hydrogen chloride/HCl with a concentration of 0.1 M to a sol solution to catalyze a hydrolysis reaction of organically modified silicate, sealing it by a cover, and magnetically stirring for 1 hour; adding Triton X-100 during mixing to improve a homogeneity of a silica sol, forming a crack-free whole, and preparing a carrier substrate according to a ratio of the ethyl silicate/TEOS to the n-octyltriethoxysilane to the absolute ethyl alcohol/EtOH to the 0.1 M hydrogen chloride/HCl to the Triton X-100 (pg. 713, 3. Fabrication of ratiometric fiber-optic oxygen sensors, “The n-octyltriethoxysilane…”);
Step 2, dissolving tri(4,7-biphenyl-1, 10-phenanthroline) ruthenium dichloride (II)/[Ru(dpp)3]2+ complex with a purity of 98% in 10 mL of absolute ethyl alcohol/EtOH to prepare an oxygen sensitive dye, to obtain a solution B (pg. 713, 3. Fabrication of ratiometric fiber-optic oxygen sensors, “the oxygen-sensitive dye solution was prepared by dissolving…” and pg. 715, Table 1; [Ru-(dpp)3]2+);
Step 3, dissolving 2mg of 7-amino-4-trifluoromethyl coumarin/AFC in absolute ethyl alcohol/EtOH and 3-isocyanopropyl-triethoxysilane/3-(triethoxysilyl)propylisoctanate/TEPIC to prepare a reference dye, to obtain a solution C (pg. 713, 3. Fabrication of ratiometric fiber-optic oxygen sensors, “Meanwhile, the oxygen-insensitive dye solution was prepared by dissolving…”);
Step 4, mixing the solution A, the solution B and the solution C to obtain a composite sensitive dye (pg. 713, 3. Fabrication of ratiometric fiber-optic oxygen sensors, “The luminophore-doped sol solutions were then prepared by mixing…”);
Step 5, performing dip-coating operation by a dip coater at 15 mm/min/0.25 mm/s, depositing the composite sensitive dye on one end face of a sensing optical fiber, and then stably holding the sensing optical fiber properly coated in a dry room temperature environment for a week to prepare a fiber optic probe (pg. 713, 3. Fabrication of ratiometric fiber-optic oxygen sensors, “The composite xerogels were then deposited on one end of the fibers…”); and
Step 6, establishing the optical fiber chemical ratiometric sensor measurement system for measuring dissolved oxygen concentration, taking a light source with a central wavelength of 405 nm as an excitation light source (pg. 713, 4. Experimental set up and results, “the luminescence excitation was provided by a LED…”; pg. 715, Table 1, shows [Ru(dpp)3]2+ oxygen sensitive dye used with AFC reference dye with an excitation wavelength of 405 nm), entering one end of the sensing optical fiber to an oxygen sensitive membrane of the fiber optic probe, transmitting an optical signal through the other end of the sensing optical fiber after fluorescence excitation, receiving the optical signal as a fluorescence spectrum, and finally saving and processing fluorescence spectral data (pg. 713, Fig. 2).
Chu fails to teach the ratio of the ethyl silicate to the n-octyltriethoxysilane to the absolute ethyl alcohol to the 0.1 M hydrogen chloride to the Triton X-100, which is 40:2:12.5:4:1 in step 1, the dissolving of 4 mg of tri(4,7-biphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline) ruthenium dichloride (II) in step 2, the 5 mL of absolute ethyl alcohol/ethanol and 5 mL of 3-isocyanopropyl-triethoxysilane in step 3 and the ratio of 2:1:1 to obtain a composite sensitive dye in step 4.
McEvoy teaches that the structure and behavior of sol-gel films are dependent on the fabrication parameters including the surface hydrophobicity which include the ratios of the precursors of the components used for form the sol-gel (McEvoy, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum ratio of the ethyl silicate to the n-octyltriethoxysilane to the absolute ethyl alcohol to the 0.1 M hydrogen chloride to the Triton X-100 to 40: 2: 12.5: 4: 1 which would allow for the desired structure and behavior (including the surface hydrophobicity) of the sol-gel (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Bae teaches preparation of a fluorescent dye with an organo-alkoxysilane using 7-amino-4-methylcoumarin and the claimed 3-isocyanopropyl-triethoxysilane/3-isocyantepropyltriethoxysilane (paragraph 0035).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a method (i.e., step 3) which differed from the claimed method by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., 3-(triethoxysilyl)propylisocyanate/TEPIC) with other component(s) (i.e., 3-isocyanopropyl-triethoxysilane/3-isocyantepropyltriethoxysilane), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., TEPIC), and the results of the substitution (i.e., 3-isocyanopropyl-triethoxysilane/3-isocyantepropyltriethoxysilane) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute TEPIC of reference Chu with 3-isocyanopropyl-triethoxysilane/3-isocyantepropyltriethoxysilane of reference Bae, since the result would have been predictable.
McEvoy teaches that oxygen sensing with ruthenium complexes is based on fluorescence quenching and that emission intensity and sensor response depend on the concentration of the luminophore in the matrix (McEvoy, pg. 785). McDonagh further teaches that dye loading in sol-gel films affects response time and sensitivity (McDonagh, pgs. 49-50). These teachings establish dye concentration as a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum amounts of the oxygen sensitive dye and reference dye dissolved in solvent, as directed in steps 2 and 3, which would allow for the desired sensor performance to adjust and optimize the amounts of the oxygen sensitive dye and reference dye dissolved in solvent, as directed in steps 2 and 3, through routine experimentation to achieve desired sensor performance (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
McDonagh teaches that sol-gel composition controls porosity, oxygen diffusion, and sensor response (McDonagh, abstract). Because luminophores such as Ru(ddp)3Cl2 and reference dyes such as 7-amino-4-trifluoromethyl coumarin are incorporated into the matrix, their relative amounts affect dye concentration and performance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum ratio of sol-gel solution to oxygen sensing dye solution to reference dye solution to 2:1:1 which would allow for the desired oxygen sensing coating solution.
Regarding claim 2, Chu teaches the manufacturing method of the optical fiber chemical ratiometric sensor measurement system for measuring underwater dissolved oxygen concentration according to claim 1, wherein the FC/PC-BGUV1000/1100-0.6 sensing optical fiber is selected as the sensing optical fiber (pg. 713, 3. Fabrication of ratiometric fiber-optic oxygen sensors, “The composite xerogels were then deposited on one end of the fibers…”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brianna K. Slade whose telephone number is (571)272-8514. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 2:00 PM.
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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/B.K.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights