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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the arrangement in claim 18 of wherein the one or more light sources is adapted to illuminate at least the pores in the translucent element from a side of the front side facing the back side; and the arrangement in claim 21 of contacting the front side of the porous unit with the liquid and optically probing the liquid disposed inside the pores from a side of the front side facing the back side must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
1. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2018/0328842 to Kjaer.
Kjaer teaches a porous mirror (“porous unit”) for detection of an analyte in a fluid (“liquid”) 99 by optical probing that includes a translucent slab (“translucent element”) 2, with a front side 3 and a back side 4 facing away from the front side. [0096]
The translucent element comprises pores 6, wherein the pores are dead end pores extending from respective openings 7 fluidically connecting them with the liquid at the front side into the translucent element, wherein a cross-sectional dimension of the openings of the pores is dimensioned so as to prevent larger particles or debris from entering the pore, while allowing the analyte in the liquid to enter the pores via diffusion. (Abstract).
Note, in Kjaer the translucent element will be in contact with the liquid at the front portion at least in or near the openings of the pores.
I.) As noted above, Kjaer teaches all the elements of claim 25.
Therefore, Kjaer anticipates claim 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
2. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaer. In view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0077627 to Worthington et al.
Kjaer teaches a porous mirror (“porous unit”) for detection of an analyte in a fluid (“liquid”) 99 by optical probing that includes a translucent slab (“translucent element”) 2, with a front side 3 and a back side 4 facing away from the front side, wherein the front side of the translucent element is separated from the being in contact with the liquid by a reflective layer 5 that allows for internal reflection at an interface of light reaching the interface of the translucent element. [0096]
The translucent element comprises pores 6, wherein the pores are dead end pores extending from respective openings 7 fluidically connecting them with the liquid at the front side into the translucent element, wherein a cross-sectional dimension of the openings of the pores is dimensioned so as to prevent larger particles or debris from entering the pore, while allowing the analyte in the liquid to enter the pores via diffusion. (Abstract).
Note, applicant’s claim 1 recite an alternative embodiment in which the translucent element is separated from the liquid by one or more layers at the front side of the translucent element, the one or more layers being adapted to allow internal reflection at an interface of light reaching the interface from the translucent element by allowing light to pass through at least a portion of the one or more layers.
While Kjaer teaches a reflective layer 5, Kjaer does not teach a transparent layer.
Worthington et al. teaches an analysis system in which a reflective layer 512 is provided over a light transmissive cover 512 so that light passing through a sample fluid 522 is reflected back by the reflective layer. (Fig. 31; [0156])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kjaer to include a light transmissive layer between the reflective layer 5 and the translucent element 2 as taught by Worthington et al. for allowing light to pass through the light transmissive layer before being reflected back as a matter of design choice based on a known arrangement of a light transmissive layer and a reflective layer.
Note, in Kjaer as modified in view of Worthington et al. the translucent element will be in contact with the liquid at the front portion at least in or near the openings of the pores.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders all the elements of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the cross-sectional dimension of the openings of the pores is 1 µm or less and/or wherein a length of the pores in an axial direction along the pores is less than 100 µm.
Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. teaches that a length of the pores in an axial direction along the pores is less than 100 μm. [0031]
Therefore Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that a porosity of a given volume of the translucent element comprising pores is between 50 % and 5 % by volume, and/or an equivalent pore volume depth is less than 20 pma total volume of the pores divided by a front side area over which the openings of the pores are distributed.
Kjaer teaches that an equivalent pore volume depth DELTA is less than 20 μm, wherein the equivalent pore volume depth DELTA is defined as the total volume of the pores V divided by the front side area A over which the openings of the pores are distributed.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the front of the translucent element is separated from the liquid by the one or more layers at the front side of the translucent element, the one or more layers being adapted to be translucent to light reaching the front side at normal incidence from the translucent element.
Worthington et al. teaches that the transmission layer can be made from glass which would be translucent to light reaching the front side at normal incidence from the translucent element.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the front of the translucent element is separated from the liquid by the one or more layers at the front side of the translucent element the one or more layers being adapted to be absorbent to light reaching the front side at normal incidence from the translucent element.
Kjaer teaches that the “reflective layer” transmits light less than 5%, less than 1% or even less than 0.1% in the spectral range of detection. [0061]. Such transmission renders the reflective layer translucent and the light that is not reflected is absorbed.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 6 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the translucent element and/or the one or more layers separating the front side of the translucent element from the liquid is arranged for enabling internal reflection at the interface between on one side the translucent element and/or one or more layers and on the other side the liquid.
As shown in Figs. 1, 4, 6a, 6b, The reflective layer of Kjaer enables internal reflection.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 7 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the translucent element is provided with reflective elements arranged inside the pores in a mouth portion thereof, adjacent to the opening at the front side of the translucent element.
As shown in Figs. 2, 3a and 3b, Kjaer teaches reflective elements 51 and 52 arranged inside the pores in a mouth portion thereof, adjacent to the opening at the front side of the translucent element.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 8 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 8 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that the reflective elements are provided as a reflective coating covering only a fraction of the circumference of the mouth portion of the pores in the vicinity of the opening, wherein the fraction is about 70 % or less.
Kjaer teaches that reflective elements are provided as a reflective coating covering only a fraction of the circumference of the mouth portion of the pores in the vicinity of the opening, wherein the fraction is about 70% or less. [0053]
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the translucent element comprises a material which has an attenuation coefficient so that a transmission coefficient of light through the material is at least 50 % for a length though the material of 100 micrometers.
Applicant teaches that the translucent element is made from a transparent polymer material on page 34, as does Kjaer at [0102]
Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. does not teach that the translucent element comprises a material which has an attenuation coefficient so that a transmission coefficient of light through the material is at least 50 % for a length though the material of 100 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a transparent polymer material for the translucent element in Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. that provides a sufficient transmission coefficient of light to provide for the light to pass through the translucent element a number of times as shown in Fig. 6b in Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. to provide for optical analysis, including a transmission coefficient of light through the material that is at least 50 % for a length though the material of 100 micrometers.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
X.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites an optical assembly comprising a light guide core, the light guide core comprising an input branch, an output branch, and a coupling interface arranged to contact the backside of the translucent element opposite to the front side, such as wherein the input branch and the output branch are arranged in a common light guide plane arranged perpendicular to a front side surface of the translucent element.
Kjaer teaches a system in Figs. 1, 4, 6a and 6b that is the same as applicant’s system. Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. teaches the use of light guides from the light source and from a spectrometer input. [0106]. A coupling interface is inherently provided to keep the light guides, light source and detector properly aligned.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
XI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites a housing penetrated by a flow channel defining an axial direction, the flow channel comprising a sample space and being arranged so that the porous unit with the front side defining a sensor surface for contacting the liquid faces towards the sample space.
Applicant discloses that the flow channel is comprises a sample space and being arranged so that the porous unit with a front side defining a sensor surface for contacting the liquid.
In Figs. 1, 4, 6a and 6b Kjaer illustrates a “housing” in the form of a sample space that is the same as disclosed by applicant.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
XII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites one or more light sources, wherein the one or more light sources is adapted to illuminate at least the pores in the translucent element and/or a light detector, wherein the light detector is arranged to receive light emerging from the pores in response to an illumination by one or more light sources, and wherein the light detector
Kjaer teaches the use of a light source that is adapted to illuminate the pores and a light detector that is arranged to receive light emerging from the pores in response to an illumination the light source, and wherein the light detector is adapted to generate a signal representative of the received light, as shown in Figs. 1, 4, 6a and 6b.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
XIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, claim 15 recites a system for analyzing a liquid comprising; a liquid chamber with inlet and outlet ports for feeding and discharging the liquid, a first detector adapted to provide a first signal representative of a level of an analyte in the liquid, and one or more further detectors, each further detector being adapted to provide a respective further signal representative of the analyte of the liquid, wherein the first detector and the one or more further detectors are operable to obtain the first and the one or more further signals from the liquid, wherein the first detector is configured as a porous unit for the optical probing detection of the analyte according to claim 1.
As noted above, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
Kjaer further teaches a measurement cell 100 that reads on applicant’s liquid chamber having inlet and outlet ports. [0103].
Kjaer also teaches multiple detectors to detect analytes in the liquid. [0076]
In Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use a first detector and the one or more further detectors to obtain first and or more of the further signals from the same liquid, wherein the first detector is configured as a porous unit for the optical probing detection of the analyte and verifying detection using the plurality of detectors.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. anticipates claim 15.
XIV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 14 obvious from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the system is arranged for optically probing the liquid disposed inside the pores from a side of the front side facing the back side.
Kjaer teaches that the liquid enters the pores through openings 7 so that the liquid disposed inside the pores from a side of the front side facing the back side.[0096]
Therefore Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 16 obvious.
XV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 19, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. render claim 14 obvious from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 19 recites that the one or more light sources is adapted to illuminate at least the pores in the translucent element, wherein light from the one or more light sources reaching the pores need not have traversed a volume being fluidically connected with the pores and being outside of the translucent element and the light detector is arranged to receive the light emerging from the pores, such as emitted in response to the illumination by one or more light sources, and wherein the light detector is adapted to generate the signal representative of the received light, wherein the light emitted from the pores and reaching the light detector need not have traversed the volume being fluidically connected with the pores and being outside of the translucent element.
In Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. the light from the light source does not need to traverse a volume being fluidically connected with the pores (and not having entered the pores) and being outside of the translucent element.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 19 obvious.
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zheng et al. (“Identifying Key Factors towards Highly Reflective Silver Coatings,” Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 18 September 2017).
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 11 recites that non-reflective to light entails that at least at the one angle of incidence a reflection coefficient is less than 0.95.
Kjaer teaches the use of a reflective silver layer that is between 10 nm-100 nm depending upon the used metal. [0061]
Zheng et al. teaches that it is known that silver layers reflect “up to 95%” of visible light, indicating that less than 95% of visible light can be reflected. (paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art that the reflective layer of Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. being 10 nm to 100 nm thick would reflect up to or less that 95% of the light.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. and Zheng et al. renders claim 11 obvious.
4. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0118128 to Garcia Tello et al. (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 14 obvious from which claim 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites that both the one or more light sources, and at least the light detector, and wherein each of the one or more light sources and the light detector is placed on a side of the front side facing the back side.
Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. does not teach that both the one or more light sources, and at least the light detector, and wherein each of the one or more light sources and the light detector is placed on a side of the front side facing the back side.
Garcia Tello et al. teaches a biosensor device and method in which dead end pores 104 are sized to allow different kinds of biological particles to enter the pores. [0028]
In Garcia Tello et al. liquid is provided on a side of the biosensor above the openings if the pores and light from a laser diode is directed through the liquid to a detector 110 as shown in Fig. 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. to provide both the one or more light sources, and at least the light detector, and wherein each of the one or more light sources and the light detector is placed on a side of the front side facing the back side as taught by Garcia Tello et al. as an alternative manner of optically analyzing the sample materials in the pores.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. and Garcia Tello et al. renders claim 17 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 14 obvious from which claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites that the one or more light sources is adapted to illuminate at least the pores in the translucent element from a side of the front side facing the back side and the light detector is arranged to receive the light emerging from the pores such as emitted in response to the illumination by the one or more light sources and wherein the light detector is adapted to generate the signal representative of the received light, which has been emitted
Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. does not teach that the one or more light sources is adapted to illuminate at least the pores in the translucent element from a side of the front side facing the back side and the light detector is arranged to receive the light emerging from the pores such as emitted in response to the illumination by the one or more light sources and wherein the light detector is adapted to generate the signal representative of the received light, which has been emitted from the pores in a direction away from the front side in a direction facing the back side.
Garcia Tello et al. teaches a biosensor device and method in which dead end pores 104 are sized to allow different kinds of biological particles to enter the pores. [0028]
In Garcia Tello et al. liquid is provided on a side of the biosensor above the openings if the pores and light from a laser diode is directed through the liquid to a detector 110.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. to provide one or more light sources adapted to illuminate at least the pores in the translucent element from a side of the front side facing the back side and the light detector is arranged to receive the light emerging from the pores such as emitted in response to the illumination by the one or more light sources and wherein the light detector is adapted to generate the signal representative of the received light, which has been emitted from the pores in a direction away from (reflected out from) the front side in a direction facing the back side as suggested by the biosensor of Garcia Tello et al. as an alternative manner of optically analyzing the sample materials in the pores.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. and Garcia Tello et al. renders claim 18 obvious.
5. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Garcia Tello et al.
I) Regarding applicant’s claim 21, claim 21 recites a method for optically detecting an analyte in a liquid comprising: providing the porous unit according to claim 1 contacting the front side of the porous unit with the liquid; optically probing the liquid disposed inside the pores from a side of the front side facing the back side; and based on the result of the optical probing, establishing an analyte concentration of the liquid.
As noted above, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. teaches contacting the front side of the porous unit with the liquid, but does not teach optically probing the liquid disposed inside the pores from a side of the front side facing the back side
Garcia Tello et al. teaches a biosensor device and method in which dead end pores 104 are sized to allow different kinds of biological particles to enter the pores. [0028]
In Garcia Tello et al. liquid is provided on a side of the biosensor above the openings if the pores and light from a laser diode is directed through the liquid to a detector 110.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. to optically probe the liquid disposed inside the pores from a side of the front side facing the back side; and based on the result of the optical probing, establishing an analyte concentration of the liquid as taught by Garcia Tello et al. as an alternative manner of optically analyzing the sample materials in the pores.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. and Garcia Tello et al. renders claim 21 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 22, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. and Garcia Tello et al. renders claim 21 obvious from which claim 22 depends.
Claim 22 recites optically detecting an analyte in a liquid according to claim 21, wherein the analyte is cell-free hemoglobin, bilirubin, and/or total protein content.
Kjaer teaches detecting bilirubin. [0001]
Therefore Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. and Garcia Tello et al. renders claim 22 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 23, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. and Garcia Tello et al. renders claim 21 obvious from which claim 23 depends.
Claim 23 recites that the liquid is a whole blood sample or wherein the liquid is a plasma phase of a whole blood sample.
Kjaer teaches optical detection of substances in the plasma fraction of a whole blood sample. [0002]
Therefore Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. in view of Garcia Tello et al. renders claim 23 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 24, as noted above Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. and Garcia Tello et al. renders claim 21 obvious from which claim 24 depends.
Claim 24 recites contacting the porous unit with a reference liquid so as to fill the pores by diffusion with the reference liquid, and/or waiting for a diffusion time to allow for diffusion of the analyte in the liquid into the pores to stabilize.
Kjaer teaches the use of a reference liquid. [0024]
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. in view of Garcia Tello et al. renders claim 24 obvious.
6. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaer in view of Worthington et al.
As noted above, Kjaer teaches a porous mirror (“porous unit”) for detection of an analyte in a fluid (“liquid”) 99 by optical probing that includes a translucent slab (“translucent element”) 2, with a front side 3 and a back side 4 facing away from the front side, wherein the front side of the translucent element is separated from the being in contact with the liquid by a reflective layer 5 that allows for internal reflection at an interface of light reaching the interface of the translucent element. [0096]
The translucent element comprises pores 6, wherein the pores are dead end pores extending from respective openings 7 fluidically connecting them with the liquid at the front side into the translucent element, wherein a cross-sectional dimension of the openings of the pores is dimensioned so as to prevent larger particles or debris from entering the pore, while allowing the analyte in the liquid to enter the pores via diffusion. (Abstract).
Note, applicant’s claim 1 recite an alternative embodiment in which the translucent element is separated from the liquid by one or more layers at the front side of the translucent element, the one or more layers being adapted to allow internal reflection at an interface of light reaching the interface from the translucent element by allowing light to pass through at least a portion of the one or more layers.
While Kjaer teaches a reflective layer 5, Kjaer does not teach a transparent layer.
Worthington et al. teaches an analysis system in which a reflective layer 512 is provided over a light transmissive cover 512 so that light passing through a sample fluid 522 is reflected back by the reflective layer. (Fig. 31; [0156])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kjaer to include a light transmissive layer between the reflective layer 5 and the translucent element 2 as taught by Worthington et al. for allowing light to pass through the light transmissive layer before being reflected back as a matter of design choice based on a known arrangement of a light transmissive layer and a reflective layer.
Note, in Kjaer as modified in view of Worthington et al. the translucent element will be in contact with the liquid at the front portion at least in or near the openings of the pores.
The light transmissive layer in Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. reads on “one” or more of he layers recited in claim 26 that prevents light from reflecting to the back said.
I.) As noted above, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders obvious all the elements of claim 26.
Therefore, Kjaer in view of Worthington et al. renders claim 26 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-19, 21-24 and 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection that relies upon Worthington as necessitated by applicant’s claim amendments.
Claim 25 has been rejected as being unpatentable over Kjaer based on an interpretation how the front side of the translucent portion is in contact with the liquid at the front side.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights