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
The amendment filed 10/21/2025 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claim 38 has been amended to overcome the previous claim objection, therefore, the previous claim objection of claim 38 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 10/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21, 34, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Steinberg et al (“Miniaturised wireless smart tag for optical chemical analysis applications” January 2014, Talanta, Vol. 118, pp. 375-381).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Transmitting unit” in claims 33, 34, and 39. Here the word “unit” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “for transmitting spectroscopic data”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing a claimed function.
“Computing device” in claim 36. Here the word “device” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language for receiving and displaying spectroscopic data, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing a claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examples of structure corresponding to “transmitting unit” was found in the specification in paras. [0058], [0128], [0132] where examples of a transmitting unit are a Bluetooth interface, a WLAN or NFC interface, an antenna, or connector.
Examples of structure corresponding to “computing device” was found in the specification in paragraph [0085] where a computing device may be a smartphone. Further structure was found in [0117], [0137] where a general purpose computing device can be a personal computer (Shown in Fig. 8)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The embodiment where the photometer is integrated into a label is shown in the drawings in Figs. 2-5, 6(b), and 7 (label 18) and described in the specification in paragraphs [0037-0042], [0124-0128], and [0135-0136]. The label 18 is described as being mounted to the wall of a sample container (Figs. 2-5, 6(b), and 7), however, nowhere in the specification is the photometer mounted to a longitudinal end of the sample container when the photometer is integrated into a label, as recited in claim 23. Fig. 1 does show a photometer 14 that is removably mounted to a longitudinal end 16 of a sample container 12, however, the photometer 14 in Fig. 1 is not described as being integrated into a label. Regarding Fig. 1, [0120-0123] of the specification describes the photometer 14 as being screwed onto the lower end 16 of the sample container or being integrated into the lid 20, but there is no mention of the photometer 14 being integrated into a label.
Claim 24 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 23.
Regarding claim 25, there is no description of the sample container being sealable by the photometer when the photometer is integrated into a label. Fig. 1 and [0121-0123] describes a lid 20 which can seal the sample container 12 where the photometer 14 may be integrated into the lid 20, however, the embodiment of Fig. 1 does not describe the photometer being integrated into a label. The only embodiments that describe the photometer being integrated into a label are shown in Figs. 2-5, 6(b), and 7, however, none of those embodiments describes the sample container being sealable by the photometer when the photometer is integrated into a label 18.
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.
Claim 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 back 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 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 on the cuvette.” It is unclear how the photometer is integrated into a label on both the cuvette and the sample container. As best understood and therefore interpreted, the sample container in claim 26 is meant to recite “the cuvette.”
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 26 and 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 26 recites that the photometer is mounted to the sample container via a label, however, claim 21 (which claim 26 depends on) already recites that the photometer is integrated into a label on the cuvette. Claim 27 recites that the photometer is integrated in the label, however, claim 21 (which claim 27 depends on) 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.
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.
Claims 21-24, 26-27, 29, 32-36, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinberg et al (“Miniaturised wireless smart tag for optical chemical analysis applications” January 2014, Talanta, Vol. 118, pp. 375-381).
Regarding Claim 21, Steinberg et al 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 comprises printed 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).).
Regarding Claim 22, Steinberg et al teaches the cuvette according to claim 21.
Steinberg et al further teaches that the photometer is mounted (Definition taken from oed.com where mount means “to fix in position, especially for a particular purpose; to put in working order; to set or put in a particular position. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/mount_v?tab=meaning_and_use#35742639) to the sample container (Fig. 2: The cuvette is set in a particular position inside the optical cell for photometric measurements).
Regarding Claim 23, Steinberg et al teaches the cuvette according to claim 22.
Steinberg et al further teaches that the photometer is removably mounted to a longitudinal end of the sample container (Shown in Fig. 2 where the optical cell is removable from the cuvette from the longitudinal end/bottom end of the cuvette).
Regarding Claim 24, Steinberg et al teaches the cuvette according to claim 23.
Steinberg et al further teaches that the longitudinal end of the sample container is a lower end of the sample container (shown in Fig. 2 where the longitudinal end of the cuvette is a lower end/bottom of the cuvette).
Regarding Claim 26, Steinberg et al teaches the cuvette according to claim 21.
Steinberg et al further teaches that the photometer (Fig. 2: LEDs and PD make photometric measurements) is mounted to the sample container via a label (Shown in Fig. 2 and described on page 377, Col. 1, paragraph 2: LEDs and PD are surface mounted to the optical cell).).
Regarding Claim 27, Steinberg et al teaches the cuvette according to claim 26.
Steinberg et al further teaches that the photometer is integrated in the label (Fig. 2: LEDs and PD make photometric measurements and are surface mounted/attached to the optical cell).
Regarding Claim 29, Steinberg et al teaches the cuvette according to claim 21.
Steinberg et al further teaches that the cuvette further comprises a power supply (Page 378, Col. 1, last paragraph: The wireless photometer operates from the energy from the electromagnetic field generated by the RFID reader (shown in Fig. 2), therefore, the RFID reader is effectively a power supply for the wireless photometer. Furthermore, the RFID tag turns on both the LEDs and the photodiode (page 377, Col. 1, paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 32, Steinberg et al teaches the cuvette according to claim 21.
Steinberg et al further teaches that the sample (S) is a solution (Abstract: Performance of the wireless photometer is tested with solution.).
Regarding Claim 33, Steinberg et al teaches the cuvette according to claim 21.
Steinberg et al further teaches that the cuvette further comprises a transmitting unit (Fig. 2: RFID tag) for transmitting spectroscopic data of the sample (S) measured by the photometer (Abstract: “The photometer tag is based on the radiofrequency identification (RFID) smart card system, which provides short-range wireless data and power transfer between the photometer and a proximal reader...”.).
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 transmitting unit (Fig. 2: RFID tag transmits data measured by the photodiode (PD) wirelessly to the RFID reader) 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 comprises printed 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).); and
a receiving unit (Fig. 2: RFID reader) for receiving the spectroscopic data transmitted by the transmitting unit (Fig. 2: RFID tag);
wherein the transmitting unit 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.
Regarding Claim 35, Steinberg et al teaches the system according to claim 34.
Steinberg et al further teaches that the communication is wireless (Fig. 2: RF communication is wireless).
Regarding Claim 36, Steinberg et al teaches the system according to claim 34.
Steinberg et al further teaches that the receiving unit (Fig. 2: RFID reader) is a computing device (Fig. 2: RFID reader is linked to a personal computer), wherein the interface is a display of the computing device (Fig. 2: personal computer) for displaying the spectroscopic data.
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 cuvette (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).);
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).
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 printed 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).); and
a transmitting unit (Fig. 2: RFID tag transmits data wirelessly to the RFID reader) 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 transmitting unit (shown in Fig. 2);
wherein the transmitting unit 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 transmitting unit, 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).
Regarding Claim 40, Steinberg et al teaches the method according to claim 39.
Steinburg et al further teaches that before outputting the spectroscopic data, the at least one processor (Fig. 2: personal computer) performs spectroscopic analysis calculations on the spectroscopic data received by the receiving unit (Page 376, Col. 2, paragraph 4 and page 378, Col. 1, last paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg et al (“Miniaturised wireless smart tag for optical chemical analysis applications” January 2014, Talanta, Vol. 118, pp. 375-381) in view of Khiarak et al (“A Wireless Fiber Photometry System Based on a High-Precision CMOS Biosensor With Embedded Continuous-Time ΣΔ Modulation”, June 2018, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, Vol. 12, pp. 495-509).
Regarding Claim 25, Steinburg et al teaches the cuvette according to claim 21.
Steinburg et al appears to be silent to the sample container is sealable by the photometer.
Khiarak, related to photometry, does teach that the sample container (Sample container shown in Fig. 19) is sealable by the photometer (Fig. 19: Wireless fiber photometry system provided above the sample container is capable of sealing the sample container.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steinburg et al so that the sample container is sealable by the photometer, as disclosed by Khiarak. Khiarak discloses a wireless fiber photometry system (WFPS) where the WFPS is located on the upper longitudinal end of the sample container and capable of sealing the sample container while taking photometry measurements (Shown in Fig. 19). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to substitute one known element (configuration of a photometer on the lower longitudinal end of a sample container) for another (configuration of a photometer on the upper longitudinal end of a sample container where the photometer is capable of sealing the sample container) to obtain predictable results (for taking photometry measurements) (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
Regarding Claim 30, Steinburg et al teaches the cuvette according to claim 21.
Steinburg et al further teaches the cuvette (Fig. 2: optical cell).
Steinburg et al appears to be silent to the cuvette further comprises a lid by which the sample container is sealable and a power supply, wherein the power supply is integrated in the lid.
Khiarak, related to photometry, does teach that the cuvette further comprises a lid (Fig. 19: wireless fiber photometry system (WFPS) positioned on the upper longitudinal end of the sample container can be a lid) by which the sample container is sealable (Fig. 19. WFPS can seal the sample container) and a power supply (Fig. 1: battery is shown in the WFPS), wherein the power supply is integrated in the lid (Fig. 1: battery is shown in the WFPS where the WFPS can be a lid for a sample container (Shown in Fig. 19).).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steinburg et al so that the cuvette further comprises a lid by which the sample container is sealable and a power supply, wherein the power supply is integrated in the lid, as disclosed by Khiarak. Khiarak’s photometry system has the advantage of simplifying the implementation of the photometry system and reducing power consumption while provided a compact and miniature photometry system (Abstract from Khiarak).
Claims 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg et al (“Miniaturised wireless smart tag for optical chemical analysis applications” January 2014, Talanta, Vol. 118, pp. 375-381) in view of Stefan (US 2013/0337574 A1).
Regarding Claim 28, Steinburg et al teaches the cuvette according to claim 21.
Steinburg et al appears to be silent to the cuvette further comprises a lid by which the sample container is sealable.
Stefan, related to a laboratory liquid-analysis cuvette, does teach that the cuvette (Fig. 1: cuvette 10) further comprises a lid (Fig. 1: transport closure/screw lid/screw cap 18) by which the sample container is sealable (shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Steinburg et al so that the cuvette further comprises a lid by which the sample container is sealable, as disclosed by Stefan. Lids on sample containers are well-known in the field of endeavor with the advantage of allowing for a sample within a sample container to be isolated from external factors which could negatively affect optical measurements.
Regarding Claim 31, Steinburg et al teaches the cuvette according to claim 21.
Steinburg et al further teaches the sample container (Fig. 2: cuvette).
Steinburg et al appears to be silent to the sample container has a tube-like shape.
Stefan, related to a laboratory liquid-analysis cuvette, does teach that the sample container (Fig. 1: cuvette 10) has a tube-like shape (shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Steinburg et al so that the sample container has a tube-like shape, as disclosed by Stefan. A sample container with a tube-like shape is well-known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (a sample container having a tube-like shape) to yield predictable results (to contain a sample for testing) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg et al (“Miniaturised wireless smart tag for optical chemical analysis applications” January 2014, Talanta, Vol. 118, pp. 375-381) in view of Rudde (US 2021/0078006 A1, disclosed in the IDS dated 01/26/2024).
Regarding Claim 37, Steinberg et al teaches the system according to claim 36.
Steinburg et al further teaches the computing device (Fig. 2: personal computer).
Steinburg et al appears to be silent to the computing device being a smartphone.
Rudde, related to a photometer device, does teach that the computing device is a smartphone ([0022]: “The evaluation device can be, for example, a tablet computer or a smart phone.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Steinburg et al so that that the computing device is a smartphone, as disclosed by Rudde. Using a smartphone as a computing device is well-known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (using a smartphone as a computing device) to yield predictable results (for analyzing data with the advantage or portability) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
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 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