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 Amendment
It is note that the pre-amendment filed on October 18, 2023 is after the original filing date of March 20, 2023. However, applicant does specify where each of the new claims are supported within the original filed specification. It is hereby request that applicant specify, provide for the original text of the specification that describes each (all) of the new claims and all claim amendments.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds the word limit. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The reference number “9” has been employed to refer to both an absorbent pad and a chip in paragraph [0203] and the absorbent pad is referred to by reference numbers “9” and “14”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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”.
A claim is only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus.
It is noted that the claims mention an analyte, liquid sample, analyte-binding molecule complex, external reader unit,
It is noted that term “or” and the term “and/or” which is essentially the same as “or” provides for alternative options not requirements.
It is noted that the device claims 35-49 are replete with “configured for…”, “configured to…”, “configured such that…”; “adapted to…” and other similar clauses that do not provide for any further structural elements of the device, but are directed to intended use and or process steps. Reciting such clauses before process steps, intended possible uses do not provide for structural elements of the claimed invention. The claims are directed to device that is defined by the positively claimed elements listed in the claims. There is no requirement for the device to be used to perform any steps. There is no requirement for any measuring, binding, forming any analyte-binding molecule complex, communicating with any external reader unit, capturing, modifying, changing of any electrical property, sending/receiving (transmitting) any signals (which are not structure), flowing a current, nor any other actions/process steps.
It is noted that although no process steps are required to be performed, the terms “continuous” and “continuously” are not limited to any specific amount of time.
It is noted that the phrases “at least one” and “one or more” only requires one.
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 35-54 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the concentration of an analyte…." in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is presumed that the phrases “the sample” in claim 35 and “said sample” in claim 43 are intended to refer to “the liquid sample”. If so, the claims should clearly recite such.
Claims 35 and 38 recites the limitation "the group…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, in claim 35, it is unclear what is the last item in the group (also applicable to the group recited in the paragraph beginning with “a sensing circuit comprising….”), if it is an affimer or the binding molecule having a metal reporter because the format and punctuation employed in the claim is confusing. It is unclear if the binding molecule having a reporter is a requirement or an alternative option of the group. Furthermore, although no binding is required to be performed, it is unclear what the phrase “and configured for specific binding of the analyte” modifies.
It is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the “application zone” (such “zone” which is not a specific structure of any specific dimensions, definitive structural boundaries; but is only structurally defined as “a binding molecule”) and the electrical device because the claim does not recite such.
It is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the chip, antenna, power source, and sensing circuit (only structurally defined as “an immobilized capture molecule”) because the claim does not recite such. See also prior remarks directed to the term “zone”. It is unclear what the capture molecule is required to be immobilized on/to and furthermore how such single molecule is considered as a sensing “circuit” because the claim does not clearly recite such.
It is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the positively claimed elements because none of the recited elements are required to be structurally connected to each other so as to define a single apparatus (analytical device and electrical device). A list of parts that are not required to be structurally connected do not define a single apparatus. Therefore, it is unclear how the claims as drafted are considered to define a single analytical device and electrical device, respectively. See also the lack of structural connectivity between structural elements herein relative to the dependent claims.
As to claim 35 (and other claim reciting “external reader unit”), although no external reader unit (not defined as being any specific structure) is positively claimed as an element of the invention, it is unclear what the reader is required to be external to because the claim does not recite such.
As to claims 35 and 42-43, it is unclear which/what detection zone is being referenced by “said detection zone”; “the detection zone” and “each detection zone”, respectively because claim 35 previously recites “at least one detection zone”.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the metal reporter of the detection zone" in the fifth paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No detection zone has been previously defined as comprising any amount of a metal reporter.
As to claim 35, it is unclear what is structurally required by the various “wherein” clauses such as “wherein binding…”; and “wherein the electrical device is…configured to” (not directed to any specific structural element of the electrical device) because such phrases are directed to intended use, conditions, and/or process steps as noted above. For example, the “upon receiving….” clause is directed to a condition process step that is never required to occur. There is no requirement for any binding, changing, receiving a radio-wave based interrogation signal, initiating current flow, modifying, etc. required to be performed. This is also applicable to further claims reciting the same or similar clauses. It is noted that neither of the alternative bullet points, processing steps recited in paragraph beginning with “wherein the electrical device is configured such that…” is ever required to be performed.
As to claim 35, although current is not structure and no flowing of any current is required to be performed, it is unclear what is the nexus of “a current flows through the sensing circuit” and “ a flow of current through the sensing circuit” if such are the same or different because the language if the claim does not clearly indicate such. Therefore, it is unclear what/which current is being reference by “the current” in claim 35 and “the flow of current” in claim 46. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by a current flows through the sensing circuit, because the sensing circuit is only defined as an immobilized capture molecule.
As to claim 35 (and other claim referring to “a return signal”; 36, 41, 46-47, and 49-51), although not structure never required to be generated, transmitted, etc., it is unclear what is a return signal because such is not defined in the claims. There is no requirement for any signal to ever be sent nor returned to anywhere/anything. However, it is unclear from what/where such signal is returned from and to. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required of such a signal be considered as “representative of” the analyte concentration because the claim does not clearly define such. What be considered as “representing” a concentration to one person may not be considered as such to another. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of “a radio-wave based interrogation signal” to a “return signal”, if such are the same or different because the claim does not recite such.
Dependent claims 36-54 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim.
As to claims 36 and 43, it is unclear which/what device is being referenced by “the device” because claim 35 previously recites “an analytical device” and “an electrical device”.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is further structurally required by claim 36 because the claim does not provide for any further structural element nor any further structure of any prior positively claimed element. The claim is directed to what type of technology (none of such positively claimed as structural elements of the invention) can be employed to transmit the unclaimed, undefined return signal to the external reader unit (not structurally defined) that is not a structural element of the invention.
Claim 36 contains the trademark/trade names near-field communication (NFC), Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy (BLE), and ZigBee. 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 names are used to identify/describe what type of technology (none of such positively claimed as structural elements of the invention) can be employed to transmit the unclaimed, undefined return signal to the external reader unit (not structurally defined) that is not a structural element of the invention and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
As to claim 37, it is unclear how the “application zone” (only defined as binding molecule” comprises the sensing circuit and/or the at least one detection zone because each are previously claimed as elements of the electrical device. Therefore, it is confusing if the application zone comprises the electrical device and vice versa if the electrical device comprises the application zone.
It is unclear what is further structurally required by claim 38 because the claim does not provide for any further structural element nor any further structure of any prior positively claimed element. The claim is directed to the at least one electrical property…presumptively of the at least detection zone (only defined as “an immobilized capture molecule”; see prior remarks/rejection above). However, such at least one electrical property is not structure and is not required to be measured, detected, etc.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the complex impedance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is unclear what is further structurally required by claim 39 because the claim does not provide for any further structural element nor any further structure of any prior positively claimed element. The claim is directed to what can be possibly used to power the electrical device. It is noted that none such recited in the list in the claim are positively claimed as structural elements of the invention. As previously noted above, a signal is not structure. Therefore, it is unclear how a “signal” is a source of power. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structural nexus of each recited in the list to previously claimed power source of the electrical device because the claim does not recite such. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required of a power source to be considered as “internal” because there is no structural relative basis provide for in the claim. Such power source is not required to be located in anything.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the wireless interrogating signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “such as a battery” what such is intended to be directed to because the claim does not clearly recite such.
Regarding claims 35, 39, 42-43, 46, and 54, the phrases “such that…” and "such as" render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 40, it is unclear what is structurally considered as, required to structurally define “at least two detection zones” because such zones are defined by any specific structures, structural boundaries/dimensions, and metes and bounds, so as to determine what is structurally considered as a detection zone, where each of such zones begins and ends . Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the at least two detection zones to each other and to prior at least one detection zone (only defined as an immobilized capture molecule) because the claim does not recite such.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the concentration of at least two different analytes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no requirement for and concentration of anything to be measured. There are no two different analytes previously positively claimed as elements of the invention. Although, not positively claimed, it is unclear what is the nexus of the two different analytes to the prior “an analyte in a liquid sample” and what is required of such analytes to be considered as “different” because there is no clear relative basis provided in the claims. There no specific analytes mentioned in the clam. All analytes are “different” from something.
It is unclear what is further structurally required by claim 41 because the claim does not provide for any further structural element nor any further structure of any prior positively claimed element. The claim is directed to what can be done by the electrical device (not any specific element of the electrical device). There is no requirement for any generating of any undefined return signal nor measuring of any concentrations is required to be performed. See prior remarks/rejections above.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "the concentrations of the at least two analytes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is presumed that the phrase is intended to refer to the at least two different analytes. However, no such concentrations have been previously mention.
As to claim 42, it is unclear what is structurally considered as “a reference zone” because such is not defined in the claim by any specific structure(s), definitive structural dimensions, boundaries etc. so as to determine what is a reference zone and how a reference zone is structurally distinguished from any other “zone” and structures. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required of “a reference zone” to be considered as being “for” each detection zone because the claim does not clearly recite such. See also prior rejections/remarks above.
As to claim 42, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of “a reference zone”, “one reference zone” to the prior at least one detection zone (immobilized capture molecule) of claim 35 because the claim does not provide for such.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "the one or more reference zones". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, the “configured for measuring…” clause does not provide for any structural elements of any “reference zone”. There is no requirement for any measuring of anything to be performed. However, it is unclear what is a reference value and baseline of a measured electrical property and an analyte concentration because the claim do not define such. Furthermore, it is unclear what measured electrical property of what is being referenced (note: no measuring of any electrical propertied of anything is required to be previously measured). However, it is unclear what is the nexus of “a measured electrical property” and “an analyte concentration” to “the concentration of an analyte in a liquid sample” and “at least one electrical property” recited in claim 35 because the claim does not recite such.
As to claim 43, it is unclear what comprises a porous phase and what is structurally considered as (what structure defines) the porous phase because the claim does no recite such. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structurally connectivity of the porous phase the prior positively claimed elements of claim 35 because the claim does not recite such.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally further required by the “configured such that…” clause. See prior rejections above. The entire phrase appears to be a long, run-on clause and it is confusing in view of the language and punction employed in the claim. However, it is noted that there is no required for any “receiving any sample” by anything required to occur nor is there any requirement for anything to be performed “following receiving said sample”. Furthermore it is note that the “optionally” phrase is directed to an option and stated above not process step is required to be performed. There is not requirement of any at least one binding molecule (not specifically defined, nor claimed) to be located anywhere nor migrated to anywhere. However it is unclear what is the nexus of “at least one binding molecule” to the “a binding molecule” of claim 35 because the claim does not provide for such. Furthermore, it is unclear what the phrase “located towards a distal end of said porous phase” modifies. If “the detection zone”, it is noted that no such detection zone has been previously claimed as such. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally considered as “towards” a distal end said porous phrase because such is not defined in the claim. The porous phrase has not been previously positively claimed as comprising any distal end, nor any “distal end” structurally defined in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what is structurally considered as, defines, structurally required to be “a distal end of said porous phase”.
As to claim 44, it is unclear what is further structurally required by the claim because the phrase “the antenna and the chip are not part of the sensing circuit” appears to be grammatically in correct. It appear as if the phrase should read as “not parts of”….in other words, the sensing circuit does not comprise the antenna and the chip. However, as noted above, it is unclear what is the structurally connectivity of the antenna and chip to each other, the elements of the electrical device (power source and sensing circuit (at least one detection zone, immobilized capture molecule)) because the claims do not provide for such.
It is presumed “and/or antenna” is intended to refer to “the antenna”. Claim 45 is confusing and inconsistent because claims 35 and 45 previously employ open language “comprising” and “comprises”. Furthermore the chip (9) and antenna (8) are not the same structural elements. Therefore, it is unclear how both the “chip an antenna” can now be claimed as “consists of” the sensing circuit. This contradictory to the prior employed open language. Furthermore, It is unclear what this structural meant required by such because it is unclear how both the chip an antenna “consist of” the single sensing circuit.
It is unclear what is further structurally required by claim 46 because the claim does not provide for any further structural element nor any further structure of any prior positively claimed element. The claim is directed to what can be done by the electrical device (not any specific element of the electrical device).
As to claim 46, see prior applicable rejections above. Furthermore, although no generation of any current and no flowing of any current is required to be performed, it is unclear what is meant, required by the flow of current “is generated into the return signal” by the change in the at least one electrical property. This is confusing. Furthermore, it is presumed that the phrase “the change in the at least one electrical property” is intended to refer to the change in the at least one electrical property of said detection zone” recited in claim 35. However, as previously noted above no such changing of such is required to be performed, occur. Therefore, it is unclear what is further structurally required by claim.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "the concentration of at least one analyte in a liquid sample" in lines 1-2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore it is unclear what is the nexus of such concentration, at least one analyte, and liquid sample to the concentration of an analyte in a liquid sample recited in claim 35, if such are the same or different because the claim does not indicate such. However, as previously noted that the claim is directed to a device (apparatus), no measurements of any concentration of any liquid sample is required to be performed.
Furthermore, it is presumed that the claim is intended to claim “the analytical device of claim 35”. If so, the claim should clearly recite such. It is unclear which/what analytical device is being reference by such phrase in claims 47-48.
It is unclear what is the nexus of “an external reader unit” to the unclaimed, structurally undefined an external reader unit recited in claim 35, if such are the same or different because the claim does not recite such. It is noted that the “configured for” clause does not provide for any further structure of the invention (system/apparatus). See also prior applicable rejections above. (also applicable to claim 49). Furthermore, it is noted that such external reader unit is defined by any specific structure in the claims.
As to claim 47, it is unclear which/what concentration of what/which analyte is being referenced by “the analyte concentration” because claim 35 recites “the concentration of an analyte in a liquid sample” and claim 47 previously recites “the concentration of at least one analyte in a liquid sample”. The claim is confusing.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "the … changes in the electrical property of at least one detection zone" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although no such changes are required to occur, it is noted that claim 35 previously recites “a change in at least one electrical property of said detection zone” and there is no prior mention of any changes in the electrical property of at least one detection zone.
As to claims 47-50 and 53, it is unclear which/what “the external reader unit” because claims 35 and 47 previously recite “an external reader unit”. See also prior remarks/rejections directed to such.
As to claim 47, although not structure and not specifically defined in the claim, it is unclear what/which return signal is being referenced by “the return signal” in 47d. because claim 35 also previously recites “a return signal and transmit said return signal …, and wherein the return signal is representative of the analyte concentration.”
It is unclear what is further structurally required by claim 48 because the claim does not provide for any further structural element nor any further structure of any prior positively claimed element, external reader unit (not defined by any specific structure; see prior applicable remarks/rejections above). The claim is directed to what can be done, possible use of to the external reader unit. However, there is no structural distinction, different between the external reader unit of claim 47 and that of claim 48.
As to claim 48, it is unclear which/what external reader unit is being referenced “the external reader unit” because claim 35 also recites “an external reader unit”. See prior applicable, rejections/remarks.
Claim 48 recites the limitation "the radio-wave based interrogating signal for powering the electrical device of the analytical device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although no signal is structure, there is no prior mention of any such signal powering or being for powering the electrical device. It is noted that there is no “powering” of the electrical device is required to be performed. However, it is unclear how the recited “signal” above can power the electrical device. There is no indication that the “signal” is any electrical current, supply of power.
It is unclear what is further structurally required by claim 49 because the claim does not provide for any further structural element nor any further structure of any prior positively claimed element, the external reader unit (not defined by any specific structure; see prior applicable remarks/rejections above). The claim is directed to what can be done, possible use of the external reader unit. However, there is no structural distinction, different between the external reader unit of claim 47 and that of claim 48.
Claim 50 recites the limitation "the steps of" in in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase is unnecessary.
As to claim 50, it is unclear what is the nexus of “the concentration of an analyte in a liquid sample” recited in line 1 to “the concentration of at least one analyte in a liquid sample” recited in claim 47 and “the concentration of an analyte in a liquid sample” recited in claim 35. It is unclear if such are the same or different. See also prior rejection of claim 47.
Therefore, it is also unclear what/which concentration is being referenced by “the analyte concentration” in 50c. and claim 51.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of “a liquid sample” recited in “50b.” to “a liquid sample” recite in the preamble of claims 50, 47, and 35 and “the sample” of claim 35 because the claim does not clearly recite such.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of “analytes” in 50b. to the prior recited in b. to “the at least one analyte” of claim 47 and “an analyte” of claim 35.
As to claim 50 in c. and claim 51, although not structure and not specifically defined in the claims (see prior remarks/rejections above), it is unclear what/which “return signal” is being referenced by “the return signal” because claim 50 previously recites “a radio-wave based return signal representative of the analyte concentration”, claim 47 previous recites “a return signal” and “said return signal…” and claim 35 recites “a return signal and transmit said return signal …, and wherein the return signal is representative of the analyte concentration.” Therefore, the claim are unclear and confusing.
Furthermore, as to claim 51, it is noted that the claim does not specify who/what is required to perform step e. It is note that the “for deriving…” clause is directed to an intended purpose, but does not require any “deriving the analyte concentration” (of what?) step to be performed and does not provide for what is required to be done to be done by who/what to be considered as “deriving the analyte concentration”.
As to claim 52, it is unclear how such step is required to be performed by who/what does the “allowing” because the claim does not specific such further it is noted that there is no structural connectivity required between the “application zone” (only defined as “binding molecule”) and “at least one detection zone” (only defined as “an immobilized capture molecule”…see prior rejections/remarks above).
As to claim 53, the phrase “comprising step of generating,” appears to be grammatically incorrect. It is appears as if the phrase should read as “comprising a step of generating,”.
As to claim 53, although not structure it is unclear what is “a radio-wave based interrogating signal” and what is the nexus of such to “a radio-wave based interrogation signal”, if such are the same or different. It is noted that neither of such are defined in the claims.
As to claim 54, see prior rejection above, it is unclear what is considered as required to be done by who/what to “the sample” (unclear what which sample is being referenced; if such is same or different from the “a liquid sample” of claims 50 and 35) to be considered as “processing” the sample. The phrase “stabilizing the sample” also does not provide for is required to be done by who/what to the sample to be considered as “stabilizing the sample”. Therefore, it is unclear what is required to be done by who/what to the sample to be considered as “processing/stabilizing” the sample.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 35-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sarhan, US 2019/0072549.
Sarhan discloses analytical device comprising a chip (strip). The device is for measuring the concentration of an analyte based upon electrical (impedance) measurements via an electrical sensing circuit (electrodes) after the analyte is bound by an mobile antibody coated nano particle (i.e. binding molecule for the analyte) and captured in the detection zone with an immobilized analyte binding molecule. This capturing results in a modification of the amount of metal at the detection zone, thereby leading to a change in impedance. (Abstract; paragraphs 0010, 22, 25, 27-29, 31, 34-35, 45, 48-49, 53, 55, 57; Fig 6-8 ; claim 5).
The device includes antennas 542 and 642-644 and a power source. [paragraphs 0045, 47, 49]. The device can signal conditioning circuitry (electrical device; that can generate signals) for the sensors and wired or wireless means to operate with readout equipment (external reader). The device includes RFID tags that provide for wireless, radio-wave communication with an external reader. (paragraphs 0031, 41, 46, 52-54).
The device can measure impedance and dielectric constant (paragraphs 0034-36, 43, 58].
As to claims 40-42, as noted above, the device includes electrodes (that can be considered alone and/or with other structures) as “application”, “detection” and/or “reference” zones. (paragraphs 0034-36).
As to claim 43, the device comprise a membrane (porous phase). (paragraphs 0024-25, 32, 42, and 49).
As to claims 44-45, the antennas and/or chip can be or not be considered as a part of the of/or comprising the sensing circuitry (as provided for above).
As to claims 47-54, the system comprising a device measures concentration of analytes (as indicated above) including within the cited paragraphs and throughout the disclosure and drawings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xie; Pengfei et al.; Dincer; Can et al.; KLEIN; Todd Michael et al.; Lalonde; John et al.; Wu; Jie et al.; CHUANG; CHENG HSIN et al.; YU; Fei; Longo; Johan Frédéric et al.; and AGRANAT; Aharon et al. disclose analyzers (sensing, detecting, measuring, etc. devices) and methods of use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571-272-1267. 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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798