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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/06/2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 21-22 and 26-40 are pending.
Claims 23-25 are cancelled, therefore, the previous 112(a) rejections of claims 23-25 are moot.
Claims 33-34 and 39 have been amended to remove the claim limitation “transmitting unit”, therefore, there is no longer a 112(f) interpretation for the claim limitation “transmitting unit.”
The 112(f) interpretation for “computing device” in claim 36 is withdrawn because claim 34 recites that the receiving unit has at least one processor which is sufficient structure for the computing device in claim 36. The claims no longer have any 112(f) interpretation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to claims 21, 34, and 38-39 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 21, 34, and 38-39 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on page 8, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Claims 26-27 have not been amended to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend on. Therefore, the 112(d) rejections of claims 26-27 are maintained. Claim 26 recites that the photometer is mounted to the sample container via a label, however, claim 21 already recites that the photometer is integrated into a label where the label is affixed to an exterior surface of the sample container. Claim 27 recites that the photometer is integrated in the label, however, claim 21 already recites that the photometer is integrated into a label.
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 26 is 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 26 recites the limitation "a label" in “…the photometer is mounted to the sample container via a label”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “a label” as recited in claim 26 is referring to the label recited in claim 21 or if the label of claim 26 is a different label altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, “a label” in claim 26 is the same label as claim 21.
Claim 27 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 26.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 22 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 22 recites that the photometer is mounted to the sample container, however, claim 21 already recites that the photometer is integrated into a label where the label is affixed to an exterior surface of the sample container. Claim 21 already claims a photometer that is attached to the sample container, therefore, it is unclear how claim 22 further limits claim 21.
Claim 26 recites that the photometer is mounted to the sample container via a label, however, claim 21 already recites that the photometer is integrated into a label where the label is affixed to an exterior surface of the sample container.
Claim 27 recites that the photometer is integrated in the label, however, claim 21 already recites that the photometer is integrated into a label.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 28-40 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 21, Steinberg et al (“Miniaturised wireless smart tag for optical chemical analysis applications” January 2014, Talanta, Vol. 118, pp. 375-381) teaches a cuvette for a photometric measurement of a sample (S) (shown in Fig. 2 and described in the caption of Fig. 2), the cuvette comprising:
a sample container (Fig. 2: cuvette); and
at least one photometer (Fig. 2: LEDs and PD (photodiode) together make photometric measurements), wherein the photometer is integrated into a label (Broadly interpreted, a label is something attached to a container or product, etc.; Fig. 2: LEDs and PD are surface mounted and attached to the cell holder/optical cell as described on page 377, Col. 1, paragraph 2) on the cuvette (Fig. 2: cell holder/optical cell), wherein the label is affixed to an exterior surface of the sample container (shown in Fig. 2 where LEDs and PD is attached to an exterior surface of the optical cell), wherein the label comprises electronics for the photometer (Page 377, Col. 1, paragraph 2: HSMx-C150 surface mount LEDs were used which are chip LEDs that are made on printed circuit boards (PC boards).), wherein the photometer comprises a light emitter (Fig. 2: LEDs) and a light receiver (Fig. 2: PD) arranged on opposite sides of the sample container (Shown in Fig. 2 where LEDs and PD are opposite of each other on the optical cell).
Steinberg et al does not teach that the label comprises printed electronics for the photometer.
As persuasively argued by the Applicant on page 10 of the remarks dated 05/06/2026, Steinberg et al teaches “standard laboratory cuvette is inserted into the holder, with the holder (black ABS potting box) containing the surface-mount LEDs and photodiode with an RFID tag (with microcontroller and antenna) as a distinct credit-card- sized PCB (FR4 material) that communicates with the optoelectronics via wiring or interface, not printed electronics and electronics are not upon the cuvette…”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that printed electronics can be defined as “a branch of electronics manufacturing and electronics material science that develops and applies organic and inorganic materials to create discrete components, systems, or entire devices by means of sequential and/or parallel material additive technologies such as screen printing, ink-jet printing, or direct writing. In its ‘pure’ form, a printed electronics device is realized by fabricating conductive traces as well as all required passive and active electronic components directly on the (usually) organic, flexible substrate” (definition taken from page 671, 1st paragraph from Swenson & Marinov, “Laser processing of direct-wire nano-sized materials”). Printed electronics, in contrast to silicon-based electronics, typically are produced on flexible supports instead of rigid printed circuit boards.
Claims 28-33 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 21.
Regarding Claim 34, Steinberg et al teaches a system for a photometric analysis of a sample (S) (Wireless photometer shown in Fig. 2), the system comprising:
a cuvette (Fig. 2: optical cell/cell holder), wherein the cuvette further comprises a transmitter (Fig. 2: RFID tag transmits data measured by the photodiode (PD) wirelessly to the RFID reader) comprising an antenna (Antenna from page 378, 1st column, 3rd paragraph) for transmitting spectroscopic data of the sample (S) measured by a photometer (Fig. 2: LEDs and PD (photodiode) together make photometric measurements), wherein the photometer is integrated into a label (Broadly interpreted, a label is something attached to a container or product, etc.; Fig. 2: LEDs and PD are surface mounted and attached to the cell holder/optical cell as described on page 377, Col. 1, paragraph 2) on the cuvette (Fig. 2: optical cell/cell holder), wherein the label is affixed to an exterior surface of the sample container (Shown in Fig. 2), wherein the label comprises electronics for the photometer (Page 377, Col. 1, paragraph 2: HSMx-C150 surface mount LEDs were used which are chip LEDs that are made on printed circuit boards (PC boards).), wherein the photometer comprises a light emitter (Fig. 2: LEDs) and a light receiver (Fig. 2: PD) arranged on opposite sides of the sample container (Fig. 2: optical cell); and
a receiving unit (Fig. 2: RFID reader) for receiving the spectroscopic data transmitted by the transmitter (Fig. 2: RFID tag);
wherein the transmitter and the receiving unit are in communication with each other (RF communication shown in Fig. 2); and
wherein the receiving unit (Fig. 2: RFID reader) has at least one processor (Fig. 2: personal computer has a processor) for processing the spectroscopic data received by the receiving unit and an interface (Fig. 2: personal computer has an interface) to output the spectroscopic data received by the receiving unit.
Steinberg et al does not teach that the label comprises printed electronics for the photometer.
As persuasively argued by the Applicant on page 10 of the remarks dated 05/06/2026, Steinberg et al teaches “standard laboratory cuvette is inserted into the holder, with the holder (black ABS potting box) containing the surface-mount LEDs and photodiode with an RFID tag (with microcontroller and antenna) as a distinct credit-card- sized PCB (FR4 material) that communicates with the optoelectronics via wiring or interface, not printed electronics and electronics are not upon the cuvette…”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that printed electronics can be defined as “a branch of electronics manufacturing and electronics material science that develops and applies organic and inorganic materials to create discrete components, systems, or entire devices by means of sequential and/or parallel material additive technologies such as screen printing, ink-jet printing, or direct writing. In its ‘pure’ form, a printed electronics device is realized by fabricating conductive traces as well as all required passive and active electronic components directly on the (usually) organic, flexible substrate” (definition taken from page 671, 1st paragraph from Swenson & Marinov, “Laser processing of direct-wire nano-sized materials”). Printed electronics, in contrast to silicon-based electronics, typically are produced on flexible supports instead of rigid printed circuit boards.
Claims 35-37 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 34.
Regarding Claim 38, Steinberg et al teaches a method for a photometric measurement of a sample (S), the method comprising the following steps:
providing a cuvette (Fig. 2: optical cell/cell holder) comprising:
a sample container (Fig. 2: cuvette); and
at least one photometer (Fig. 2: LEDs and PD (photodiode) together make photometric measurements), wherein the photometer is integrated into a label (Broadly interpreted, a label is something attached to a container or product, etc.; Fig. 2: LEDs and PD are surface mounted and attached to the cell holder/optical cell as described on page 377, Col. 1, paragraph 2) on the sample container (Fig. 2: optical cell), wherein the label is affixed to an exterior surface of the sample container (Shown in Fig. 2) and comprises electronics for the photometer (Page 377, Col. 1, paragraph 2: HSMx-C150 surface mount LEDs were used which are chip LEDs that are made on printed circuit boards (PC boards).);
inserting the sample (S) into the sample container (Fig. 2: sample inserted into cuvette); and
measuring the spectroscopic data, using the photometer, of the sample (S) (Shown in Fig. 2 and described in the Abstract).
Steinberg et al does not teach that the label comprises printed electronics for the photometer.
As persuasively argued by the Applicant on page 10 of the remarks dated 05/06/2026, Steinberg et al teaches “standard laboratory cuvette is inserted into the holder, with the holder (black ABS potting box) containing the surface-mount LEDs and photodiode with an RFID tag (with microcontroller and antenna) as a distinct credit-card- sized PCB (FR4 material) that communicates with the optoelectronics via wiring or interface, not printed electronics and electronics are not upon the cuvette…”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that printed electronics can be defined as “a branch of electronics manufacturing and electronics material science that develops and applies organic and inorganic materials to create discrete components, systems, or entire devices by means of sequential and/or parallel material additive technologies such as screen printing, ink-jet printing, or direct writing. In its ‘pure’ form, a printed electronics device is realized by fabricating conductive traces as well as all required passive and active electronic components directly on the (usually) organic, flexible substrate” (definition taken from page 671, 1st paragraph from Swenson & Marinov, “Laser processing of direct-wire nano-sized materials”). Printed electronics, in contrast to silicon-based electronics, typically are produced on flexible supports instead of rigid printed circuit boards.
Regarding Claim 39, Steinberg et al teaches a method for a photometric analysis of a sample (S), the method comprising the following steps:
providing a system (Wireless photometer shown in Fig. 2) comprising:
a cuvette (Fig. 2: optical cell/cell holder) comprising:
a sample container (Fig. 2: cuvette or optical cell);
at least one photometer (Fig. 2: LEDs and PD (photodiode) together make photometric measurements), wherein the photometer is integrated into a label (Broadly interpreted, a label is something attached to a container or product, etc.; Fig. 2: LEDs and PD are surface mounted and attached to the cell holder/optical cell as described on page 377, Col. 1, paragraph 2) on the sample container (Fig. 2: optical cell), wherein the label comprises electronics for the photometer (Page 377, Col. 1, paragraph 2: HSMx-C150 surface mount LEDs were used which are chip LEDs that are made on printed circuit boards (PC boards).), wherein the photometer comprises a light emitter (Fig. 2: LEDs) and a light receiver (Fig. 2: PD) arranged on opposite sides of the sample container (Fig. 2: optical cell); and
a transmitter (Fig. 2: RFID tag transmits data wirelessly to the RFID reader) comprising an antenna (antenna from page 378, Col. 1, 3rd paragraph) for transmitting spectroscopic data of the sample (S) measured by the photometer (Shown in Fig. 2); and
a receiving unit (Fig. 2: RFID reader) for receiving the spectroscopic data transmitted by the transmitter (shown in Fig. 2);
wherein the transmitter and the receiving unit are in communication with each other (Fig. 2: RF communication); and
wherein the receiving unit has at least one processor (Fig. 2: RFID reader is connected to a personal computer which would have a processor) for processing the spectroscopic data received by the receiving unit and an interface (Fig. 2: personal computer has an interface) to output the spectroscopic data received by the receiving unit;
inserting the sample (S) into the sample container (Fig. 2: sample is inserted into the cuvette);
measuring the spectroscopic data, using the photometer, of the sample (S) (Shown in Fig. 2 and described in Abstract);
transmitting the spectroscopic data, using the transmitter, to the receiving unit (Fig. 2: RF communication); and
outputting the spectroscopic data, using the interface of the receiving unit, received by the receiving unit (Fig. 2: RFID reader sends data to the personal computer).
Steinberg et al does not teach that the label comprises printed electronics for the photometer.
As persuasively argued by the Applicant on page 10 of the remarks dated 05/06/2026, Steinberg et al teaches “standard laboratory cuvette is inserted into the holder, with the holder (black ABS potting box) containing the surface-mount LEDs and photodiode with an RFID tag (with microcontroller and antenna) as a distinct credit-card- sized PCB (FR4 material) that communicates with the optoelectronics via wiring or interface, not printed electronics and electronics are not upon the cuvette…”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that printed electronics can be defined as “a branch of electronics manufacturing and electronics material science that develops and applies organic and inorganic materials to create discrete components, systems, or entire devices by means of sequential and/or parallel material additive technologies such as screen printing, ink-jet printing, or direct writing. In its ‘pure’ form, a printed electronics device is realized by fabricating conductive traces as well as all required passive and active electronic components directly on the (usually) organic, flexible substrate” (definition taken from Swenson & Marinov, “Laser processing of direct-wire nano-sized materials”). Printed electronics, in contrast to silicon-based electronics, typically are produced on flexible supports instead of rigid printed circuit boards.
Claims 40 is allowed by virtue of its dependence on claim 39.
Claims 26-27 would be allowable, due to their dependence on claim 21, if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 22 and 26-27 would be allowable, due to their dependence on claim 21, if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Other References Considered but not Cited
Zangenberg (US 20130104633 A1), related to a system for determining an analyte in a water sample, shows in Fig. 1 a transmitter and receiver device 24 that is a water-tight RFID label. However, the transmitter and receiver device are not printed electronics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights