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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03 July 2024 is acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 includes the language "measuring the first voltage between the two points along the fluidic comprises." This should be "measuring the first voltage between the two points along the fluidic channel comprises."
Claim 15 should have a semicolon instead of a comma after "a calibration resistor" in line 5.
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 3, 10, 12-13, and 16 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first voltage" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this claim is interpreted to depend from claim 2.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second impedance ratio" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the "second ratio" in line 4 is read as a "second impedance ratio."
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the same input voltage" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second impedance ratio" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this claim is interpreted to depend from claim 10.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "at the first time point at the second time point" in the last line. It is not clear which time point is being referenced. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will not be given any weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2024 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106. (Note: the claim limitations below considered to fall within an abstract idea are highlighted in bold font; the remaining features are "additional elements.")
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2024 PEG asks whether a claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 15-17 are directed to an apparatus, and therefore fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One
Step 2A, Prong One of the 2024 PEG asks whether the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The claims recite:
15. An electronic reader for detecting a property of a fluid inside a cartridge, the electronic reader comprising:
traces configured to connect to at least two electrodes disposed along a fluidic channel of the cartridge;
a calibration resistor, and
impedance processing circuitry, the impedance processing circuitry configured to:
determine a first impedance of the fluid between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge at a first time point,
determine a second impedance between two points on the calibration resistor at the first time point,
determine a first impedance ratio based at least in part on the first impedance and the second impedance,
determine a third impedance of the fluid between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge at a second time point,
determine a second impedance ratio based at least in part on the third impedance,
wherein the property of the fluid is based at least in part on the first impedance ratio and the second impedance ratio.
16. The electronic reader of claim 15, wherein the impedance processing circuitry is configured to
determine the first impedance based at least in part on a first voltage measured between two points on the calibration resistor at the first time point,
determine the second impedance based at least in part on a second voltage measured between two points on the calibration resistor at the first time point, and
determine the third impedance based at least in part on a third voltage measured between two points on the calibration resistor at the first time point at the second time point.
17. The electronic reader of claim 15, wherein the electronic reader is configured to
apply an input voltage between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge and measures an output voltage between the two electrodes when the fluid is between the two electrodes in the fluidic channel.
The highlighted portion of claim 15 comprises a calculation method that falls within the abstract idea judicial exception. The claim is directed toward an abstract idea that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, clearly covers mathematical concepts/mental processes performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
The highlighted portion of claim 16 comprises subject matter that falls within the abstract idea judicial exception This subject matter further defines the abstract idea of claim 1 (and does not make the abstract idea any less abstract).
Step 2A, Prong Two
Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2024 PEG asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is "directed to" the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of "An electronic reader for detecting a property of a fluid inside a cartridge," "traces configured to connect to at least two electrodes disposed along a fluidic channel of the cartridge," "a calibration resistor," "impedance processing circuitry," and "wherein the property of the fluid is based at least in part on the first impedance ratio and the second impedance ratio."
The first of these is just a recitation of the name and intended purpose of the claimed apparatus. The second and third of these relate to physical components used for collecting data. The fourth of these relates to generic processing circuitry that implements the above-identified abstract steps. The last of these merely relates that the property of the fluid to be determined, presumably, is somehow related to impedance. These additional elements correspond to structure used to collect data employed in the abstract steps, except in the case of the last element, which, at best, is merely related to the idea of a solution or outcome. The structure used to collect data corresponds to features for mere data gathering, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The impedance processing circuitry itself is not described in any detail, and amounts to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing device. The last element relating to the property of the fluid being based on impedance again merely related to the idea of a solution or outcome, and at best links the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 17 recites the additional element of the electronic reading being configured to "apply an input voltage between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge and measures an output voltage between the two electrodes when the fluid is between the two electrodes in the fluidic channel."
However, this element relates to how data is collected, and at best links the identified exception to a particular environment. It does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 15-17 thus require further analysis under Step 2B.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2024 PEG asks whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
With regards to claim 15, the additional elements identified above correspond to insignificant pre-solution activity (collecting data), generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use, using a generic computing device, and generally recite the idea of a solution. These additional limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
With regards to claim 16, the additional elements identified above further define the abstract idea. These additional limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
With regards to claim 17, the additional elements identified above correspond to insignificant pre-solution activity (collecting data). These additional limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claims 15-17 therefore constitute ineligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,618,019 to Du et al. (hereinafter referred to as Du), US 2022/0233230 to Bogdanowicz et al. (hereinafter referred to as Bogdanowicz), and US 2021/0010967 to Martin et al. (hereinafter referred to as Martin).
With regards to claim 1, Du teaches a system for detecting a property of a fluid (flow cytometer 10; see fig. 2, 4A, etc.), the system comprising:
a cartridge (32) comprising a fluidic channel (36), the fluidic channel comprising at least two electrodes (56, 58) disposed along the fluidic channel of the cartridge (see fig. 4A);
an electronic reader (30 and 14) configured to electrically connect to the cartridge (via wires 78), the electronic reader comprising:
a calibration resistor (64; see fig. 3 and col. 9, l. 58 to col. 10, l. 29), and
impedance processing circuitry (12, 14; see fig. 3 and col. 7, ll. 11-21), the impedance processing circuitry configured to:
determine a first impedance of the fluid in the fluidic channel of the cartridge (col. 10, ll. 55-57), and
determine a second impedance of the calibration resistor in the electronic reader (col. 10, ll. 53-55), and
determining the property of the fluid based at least in part on the first impedance (however, as best understood, this is not done by the impedance processing circuitry; col. 12, ll. 25-43).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Du does not expressly teach the impedance processing circuitry:
determining at least a first impedance ratio based at least in part on the first impedance and the second impedance,
determining the property of the fluid based at least in part on the first impedance ratio, and
determining the property of the fluid based at least in part on the first impedance ratio.
Bogdanowicz teaches the feature of taking a calibration impedance measurement of a calibration impedance, and then dividing impedance measurements by the calibration impedance measurement in order to compensate for external influence/factors on measured impedance ([0033]-[0035]).
Du and Bogdanowicz both relate to making material assessments based on measured impedances, and in light hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Bogdanowicz to Du, specifically such that the impedance processing circuitry determines at least a first impedance ratio based at least in part on the first impedance and the second impedance (i.e., divides by the calibration impedance to compensate the unknown impedance measurement), and then the property of the fluid is determined based at least in part on the first impedance ratio (based on the compensated impedance). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to similarly reduce the effect of extraneous factors on the measured impedance (see the end of [0035] in Bogdanowicz).
Martin, also in the field of fluid sample analysis, teaches the feature of an evaluator device 108 (corresponding to impedance processing circuitry) determining a property of the fluid based at least in part on a determined impedance ([0030]-[0034]). Martin also teaches that such a fluid property detection system is useful in a variety of fields ([0030]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Du and Bogdanowicz such that the system operates in a desired field with any appropriate modifications, and the impedance processing circuitry, similarly to in Martin, determines a property of the fluid based at least in part on the first impedance ratio. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to automate the determination and provide at least preliminary analysis results in an expeditious manner.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Martin teaches the system of claim 1. However, Du does not expressly teach the electronic reader being configured to: determine the first impedance based at least in part on a first voltage of the fluid measured between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge, and determine the second impedance based at least in part on a second voltage measured between two points on the calibration resistor.
Nevertheless, Martin teaches the feature of determining impedance by applying an electrical stimulus (e.g., a current) to a medium (e.g., a fluid), measuring an output of a sensor in contact with the medium (e.g., a voltage), then determining the impedance of the medium using the known stimulus and the measured output ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt the technique of Martin in the system above such that the electronic reader is configured to: determine the first impedance based at least in part on a first voltage of the fluid measured between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge, and determine the second impedance based at least in part on a second voltage measured between two points on the calibration resistor. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enable impedance to be determined using voltage measurements.
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Martin teaches the system of claim 2. However, Du does not expressly teach the electronic reader being configured to apply an input voltage between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge and measure the first voltage between the two electrodes when the fluid is between the two electrodes in the fluidic channel.
Nevertheless, Martin teaches the feature of determining impedance by applying an electrical stimulus (e.g., a current) to a medium (e.g., a fluid), measuring an output of a sensor in contact with the medium (e.g., a voltage), then determining the impedance of the medium using the known stimulus and the measured output ([0028]).
To apply a stimulus current inherently involves a corresponding stimulus voltage to produce the current, and it thus would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt the technique of Martin in the system above such that the electronic reader is configured to: apply an input voltage between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge and measure the first voltage between the two electrodes when the fluid is between the two electrodes in the fluidic channel. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enable impedance to be determined using voltage measurements.
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Martin teaches the system of claim 1. However, the above combination does not expressly teach the impedance processing circuitry being configured to output a notification to indicate the determined property of the fluid.
Nevertheless, Martin teaches the feature of evaluator device 108 (corresponding to impedance processing circuitry) being configured to output a notification (output 522) to indicate the determined property of the fluid ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Martin such that the impedance processing circuitry, similarly to in Martin, is configured to output a notification to indicate the determined property of the fluid. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to provide the determination to the outside of the processing circuitry such that it could be acted upon.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du, Bogdanowicz, and Martin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 7,355,415 to Boyle et al. (hereinafter referred to as Boyle).
With regards to claim 4, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Martin teaches the system of claim 1. However, the above combination does not expressly teach the impedance processing circuitry being configured to compare the first impedance ratio with a second impedance ratio to determine the property of the fluid, the first impedance ratio determined at least in part based on measurements taken at a first time point, and the second impedance ratio determined at least in part based on measurements taken at a second time point.
In the field of fluid condition monitoring/analysis, Boyle teaches that for some fluids, the relative change in impedance of said fluid over time is indicative of degradation and that the fluid has reached the end of its useful life (col. 11, l. 56 to col. 12, l. 43).
In light hereof, in systems for detecting a property of a fluid, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement similar analysis and, specifically have the impedance processing circuitry be similarly configured to compare the first impedance ratio with a second impedance ratio (determined at a later time, and also similarly compensated by calibration impedance) to determine the property of the fluid, the first impedance ratio determined at least in part based on measurements taken at a first time point (an earlier time), and the second impedance ratio determined at least in part based on measurements taken at a second time point (a later time). One of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so in order to evaluate the condition of an analyzed fluid that changes over time.
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, Martin, and Boyle teaches the system of claim 4. Du further teaches that the electronic reader further comprises a memory for storing at least the first impedance ratio and the second impedance (a memory 28 for saving all collected impedance data; col. 7, ll. 4-6), and wherein the electronic reader is configured to determine the second impedance ratio based at least in part on the stored second impedance (because all impedance data is stored, a determined second impedance ratio would be based at least in part on the stored second impedance).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du, Bogdanowicz, Martin, and Boyle as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 6,028,433 to Cheiky-Zelina et al. (hereinafter referred to as Cheiky-Zelina).
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, Martin, and Boyle teaches the system of claim 4. As stated above, Boyle teaches that a change in impedance can indicate that a fluid has reached the end of its useful life (is expired, in other words), but this combination does not expressly teach the impedance processing circuitry being configured to determine that the fluid is expired if a percentage difference between the first impedance ratio and the second impedance ratio is greater than a predetermined percentage.
In the field of fluid condition monitoring/analysis, Cheiky-Zelina teaches the feature of comparing a calculated percentage change in a monitored parameter to a threshold to determine the condition of a fluid sample (col. 15, l. 60 to col. 16, l. 33). Clearly, when monitoring change over time, it is thus known to compare a calculated percentage change in a monitored parameter to a threshold, and when monitoring a fluid, and it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the impedance processing circuitry to determine that the fluid is expired if a percentage difference between the first impedance ratio and the second impedance ratio is greater than a predetermined percentage. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling determination of when the impedance of the fluid being monitored has departed from its baseline.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and Bogdanowicz.
With regards to claim 8, Du teaches a method of detecting a property of a fluid inside a cartridge (32) using an electronic reader (30 and 14), the method comprising:
electrically connecting the electronic reader to the cartridge (via wires 78; col. 13, ll. 19-22),
determining a first impedance of a fluid in a fluidic channel of the cartridge at a first time point (col. 10, ll. 55-57),
determining a second impedance of a calibration resistor in the electronic reader at the first time point (col. 10, ll. 53-55), and
determining the property of the fluid at least in part based on the first impedance (col. 12, ll. 25-43).
Du does not expressly teach:
determining at least a first impedance ratio based at least in part on the first impedance and the second impedance, and
determining the property of the fluid at least in part based on the first impedance ratio.
Bogdanowicz teaches the feature of taking a calibration impedance measurement of a calibration impedance, and then dividing impedance measurements by the calibration impedance measurement in order to compensate for external influence/factors on measured impedance ([0033]-[0035]).
Du and Bogdanowicz both relate to making material assessments based on measured impedances, and in light hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Bogdanowicz to Du, specifically such that the method involves determining at least a first impedance ratio based at least in part on the first impedance and the second impedance (i.e., divides by the calibration impedance to compensate the unknown impedance measurement), and determining the property of the fluid at least in part based on the first impedance ratio (based on the compensated impedance). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to similarly reduce the effect of extraneous factors on the measured impedance (see the end of [0035] in Bogdanowicz).
Claims 9, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and Bogdanowicz as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Martin.
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Du and Bogdanowicz teaches the method of claim 8.
However, this combination does not expressly teach that determining the first impedance comprises measuring a first voltage between two points along the fluidic channel of the cartridge containing the fluid at the first time point, and determining the second impedance comprises measuring a second voltage between two points on the calibration resistor at the first time point.
Nevertheless, Martin teaches the feature of determining impedance by applying an electrical stimulus (e.g., a current) to a medium (e.g., a fluid), measuring an output of a sensor in contact with the medium (e.g., a voltage), then determining the impedance of the medium using the known stimulus and the measured output ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt the technique of Martin in the method above such that determining the first impedance comprises measuring a first voltage between two points along the fluidic channel of the cartridge containing the fluid at the first time point (e.g., between the two electrodes 56, 58), and determining the second impedance comprises measuring a second voltage between two points on the calibration resistor at the first time point (e.g., across the ends of the resistor). Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enable impedance to be determined using voltage measurements.
With regards to claim 11, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Martin teaches the method of claim 9. In this combination, measuring the first voltage between the two points along the fluidic channel comprises applying a stimulus (a current) across the fluidic as per Martin, and to generate such a current, the method necessarily involves applying an input voltage between the two points along the fluidic channel of the cartridge containing the fluid.
With regards to claim 12, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Martin teaches the method of claim 11. This combination does not expressly teach that measuring a second voltage comprises applying the same input voltage between the two points on the calibration resistor.
Still, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method such that the measuring a second voltage comprises applying the same input voltage between the two points on the calibration resistor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to only need a single voltage generator in the system carrying out the measuring of impedance.
With regards to claim 14, the combination of Du and Bogdanowicz teaches the method of claim 8. However, the above combination does not expressly teach outputting a notification indicating the determine property of the fluid.
Nevertheless, Martin teaches the feature of evaluator device 108 (impedance processing circuitry) being configured to output a notification (output 522) to indicate the determined property of a fluid ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Du and Bogdanowicz such that the method involves outputting a notification indicating the determine property of the fluid, similarly to in Martin. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to provide the determination to the outside such that it could be acted upon.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du, Bogdanowicz, and Martin as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Boyle.
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Martin teaches the method of claim 8. However, the above combination does not expressly teach determining a third impedance between the two points along the fluidic channel of the cartridge containing the fluid at a second time point, determining a second ratio based at least in part on the third impedance, and comparing the first impedance ratio and the second impedance ratio to determine the property of the fluid inside the cartridge.
In the field of fluid condition monitoring/analysis, Boyle teaches that for some fluids, the relative change in impedance of said fluid over time is indicative of degradation and that the fluid has reached the end of its useful life (col. 11, l. 56 to col. 12, l. 43).
In light hereof, in such a method for detecting a property of a fluid, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement similar analysis and, specifically to determine a third impedance between the two points along the fluidic channel of the cartridge containing the fluid at a second time point (for establishing a change in impedance over time), determine a second ratio based at least in part on the third impedance (i.e., compensate the third impedance using a calibration impedance), and compare the first impedance ratio and the second impedance ratio to determine the property of the fluid inside the cartridge. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so in order to evaluate the condition of an analyzed fluid that changes over time.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du, Bogdanowicz, Martin, and Boyle as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 6,028,433 to Cheiky-Zelina et al. (hereinafter referred to as Cheiky-Zelina).
With regards to claim 13, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, Martin, and Boyle teaches the method of claim 10. As stated above, Boyle teaches that a change in impedance can indicate that a fluid has reached the end of its useful life (is expired, in other words), but this combination does not expressly teach the determining the property of the fluid comprises determining that the fluid is expired if a percentage difference between the first impedance ratio and the second impedance ratio is greater than a predetermined percentage.
In the field of fluid condition monitoring/analysis, Cheiky-Zelina teaches the feature of comparing a calculated percentage change in a monitored parameter to a threshold to determine the condition of a fluid sample (col. 15, l. 60 to col. 16, l. 33). Clearly, when monitoring change over time, it is thus known to compare a calculated percentage change in a monitored parameter to a threshold, and when monitoring a fluid, and it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method such that the determining the property of the fluid comprises determining that the fluid is expired if a percentage difference between the first impedance ratio and the second impedance ratio is greater than a predetermined percentage. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling determination of when the impedance of the fluid being monitored has departed from its baseline.
Claim 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du, Bogdanowicz, and Boyle.
With regards to claim 15, Du teaches an electronic reader (30 and 14) for detecting a property of a fluid inside a cartridge (32) (see the system of flow cytometer 10; see fig. 2, 4A, etc.), the electronic reader comprising:
traces configured to connect to at least two electrodes (56, 58) disposed along a fluidic channel of the cartridge (the parts of reader module 30 connecting microcontroller 12 to wires 78 and electrodes 56,58);
a calibration resistor (64; see fig. 3 and col. 9, l. 58 to col. 10, l. 29), and
impedance processing circuitry (12, 14; see fig. 3 and col. 7, ll. 11-21), the impedance processing circuitry configured to:
determine a first impedance of the fluid between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge at a first time point (col. 10, ll. 55-57),
determine a second impedance between two points on the calibration resistor at the first time point (col. 10, ll. 53-55), and
wherein the property of the fluid is based at least in part on the first impedance (col. 12, ll. 25-43).
Du does not expressly teach the impedance processing circuitry being configured to:
determine a first impedance ratio based at least in part on the first impedance and the second impedance,
determine a third impedance of the fluid between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge at a second time point,
determine a second impedance ratio based at least in part on the third impedance,
wherein the property of the fluid is based at least in part on the first impedance ratio and the second impedance ratio.
As for the limitation "wherein the property of the fluid is based at least in part on the first impedance ratio and the second impedance ratio," this is a statement relating to the fluid property, not a statement of a limitation on the electronic reader. The electronic reader does not, in fact, even make any determination in this claim. Accordingly, this language does not limit the electronic reader and is not being given patentable weight.
Bogdanowicz teaches the feature of taking a calibration impedance measurement of a calibration impedance, and then dividing impedance measurements by the calibration impedance measurement in order to compensate for external influence/factors on measured impedance ([0033]-[0035]).
Du and Bogdanowicz both relate to making material assessments based on measured impedances, and in light hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Bogdanowicz to Du, specifically such that the impedance processing circuitry determines a first impedance ratio based at least in part on the first impedance and the second impedance (i.e., divides by the calibration impedance to compensate the unknown impedance measurement). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to similarly reduce the effect of extraneous factors on the measured impedance (see the end of [0035] in Bogdanowicz).
In the field of fluid condition monitoring/analysis, Boyle teaches that for some fluids, the relative change in impedance of said fluid over time is indicative of degradation and that the fluid has reached the end of its useful life (col. 11, l. 56 to col. 12, l. 43).
In light hereof, in devices for detecting a property of a fluid, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement similar analysis and, specifically have the impedance processing circuitry be similarly configured to determine a third impedance of the fluid between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge at a second time point (after the first time point), and determine a second impedance ratio based at least in part on the third impedance (i.e., compensate the third impedance). One of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so in order to evaluate the condition of an analyzed fluid that changes over time.
With regards to claim 18, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Boyle teaches the electronic reader of claim 15. This combination does not expressly teach the impedance processing circuitry being configured to compare the first impedance ratio with a second impedance ratio to determine the property of the fluid.
However, as stated above, Boyle teaches that for some fluids, the relative change in impedance of said fluid over time is indicative of degradation and that the fluid has reached the end of its useful life (col. 11, l. 56 to col. 12, l. 43).
In light hereof, in devices for detecting a property of a fluid, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement similar analysis and, specifically have the impedance processing circuitry be similarly configured to compare the first impedance ratio with a second impedance ratio to determine the property of the fluid. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so in order to evaluate the condition of an analyzed fluid that changes over time.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du, Bogdanowicz, and Boyle as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Cheiky-Zelina.
With regards to claim 19, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Boyle teaches the electronic reader of claim 18. As stated above, Boyle teaches that a change in impedance can indicate that a fluid has reached the end of its useful life (is expired, in other words), but this combination does not expressly teach the impedance processing circuitry being configured to determine that the fluid is expired for its intended purpose if a percentage difference between the first impedance ratio and the second impedance ratio is greater than a predetermined percentage.
In the field of fluid condition monitoring/analysis, Cheiky-Zelina teaches the feature of comparing a calculated percentage change in a monitored parameter to a threshold to determine the condition of a fluid sample (col. 15, l. 60 to col. 16, l. 33). Clearly, when monitoring change over time, it is thus known to compare a calculated percentage change in a monitored parameter to a threshold, and when monitoring a fluid, and it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the impedance processing circuitry to determine that the fluid is expired for its intended purpose if a percentage difference between the first impedance ratio and the second impedance ratio is greater than a predetermined percentage. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling determination of when the impedance of the fluid being monitored has departed from its baseline.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du, Bogdanowicz, and Boyle as applied to claims 15 and 18 above, and further in view of Martin.
With regards to claim 16, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Boyle teaches the electronic reader of claim 15. However, this combination does not expressly teach that the impedance processing circuitry is configured to determine the first impedance based at least in part on a first voltage measured between two points on the calibration resistor at the first time point, determine the second impedance based at least in part on a second voltage measured between two points on the calibration resistor at the first time point, and determine the third impedance based at least in part on a third voltage measured between two points on the calibration resistor.
Nevertheless, Martin teaches the feature of determining impedance by applying an electrical stimulus (e.g., a current) to a medium (e.g., a fluid), measuring an output of a sensor in contact with the medium (e.g., a voltage), then determining the impedance of the medium using the known stimulus and the measured output ([0028]).
In view hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt the technique of Martin in the device above such that the impedance processing circuitry is configured to determine the first impedance based at least in part on a first voltage measured between two points on the calibration resistor at the first time point, determine the second impedance based at least in part on a second voltage measured between two points on the calibration resistor at the first time point (i.e., across the resistor), and determine the third impedance based at least in part on a third voltage measured between two points on the calibration resistor (again, across the resistor). Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enable impedance to be determined using voltage measurements.
With regards to claim 17, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Boyle teaches the electronic reader of claim 15. However, this combination does not expressly teach that the electronic reader is configured to apply an input voltage between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge and measures an output voltage between the two electrodes when the fluid is between the two electrodes in the fluidic channel.
Nevertheless, Martin teaches the feature of determining impedance by applying an electrical stimulus (e.g., a current) to a medium (e.g., a fluid), measuring an output of a sensor in contact with the medium (e.g., a voltage), then determining the impedance of the medium using the known stimulus and the measured output ([0028]).
To apply a stimulus current inherently involves a corresponding stimulus voltage to produce the current, and it thus would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt the technique of Martin in the device above such that the electronic reader is configured to: apply an input voltage between the at least two electrodes of the cartridge and measures an output voltage between the two electrodes when the fluid is between the two electrodes in the fluidic channel. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enable impedance to be determined using voltage measurements.
With regards to claim 20, the combination of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Boyle teaches the electronic reader of claim 18. However, the above combination does not expressly teach the impedance processing circuitry being configured to output a notification to indicate the determined property of the fluid.
Nevertheless, Martin teaches the feature of evaluator device 108 (corresponding to impedance processing circuitry) being configured to output a notification (output 522) to indicate the determined property of the fluid ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Du, Bogdanowicz, and Boyle such that the impedance processing circuitry, similarly to in Martin, is configured to output a notification to indicate the determined property of the fluid. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to provide the determination to the outside of the processing circuitry such that it could be acted upon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0182363 to Potyrailo teaches a related device for determining a property of a fluid based on impedance.
US 12,275,007 to Montgomery et al. teaches a related device for determining a property of a fluid based on impedance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights