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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments filed 04/01/2026 have been entered. Applicant amendments do not overcome each and every 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 12/01/2025, please see 112 section below.
Status of Claims
Claims 6, 26-33, 35 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 33 recites “the plurality of the one or more molecularly imprinted (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors and the plurality of the one or more reference sensors” where it is suggested to amend claim 33 to recite “the plurality of
This is because claim 33 is dependent on claim 32, where claim 32 describes that there is a plurality of MIP sensors and a plurality of reference sensors. It is believed that it would be more clear to refer to the plurality of sensors rather than the plurality of the one or more sensors.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 27-33, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “the frequency” on line 10, where it is unclear if this frequency is referring to the resonant frequency of the one or more molecularly imprinted coated piezoelectric sensors or the frequency of the one or more reference sensors.
[0059] of the PG pub 2024/0130632-A1 describes that the frequency change of the active sensors and reference sensors are compared and a resultant frequency is obtained.
Therefore, for examination the frequency of line 10 will be interpreted as being the frequency of the one or more reference sensors.
It is suggested line 10 be amended to recite “the frequency of the one or more reference sensors”
Claim 6 recites “exhaled breath” on line 14, where it is unclear if this exhaled breath is the same or different from the one recited on line 2.
For examination it will be interpreted that they are the same.
Line 14 should be amended to recite “the exhaled breath”
Claims 27-30 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 27 recites “in exhaled breath” on lines 5-6, where it is unclear if this exhaled breath is the same or different from the one described in claim 6.
For examination it will be interpreted that they are the same.
Lines 5-6 should be amended to recite “the exhaled breath”
Claims 28-30 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 28 recites “a plurality of the one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors and a plurality of the one or more reference sensors in-series.” on lines 2-4.
Claim 28 is dependent on claim 27, where claim 27 describes there being a plurality of MIP piezoelectric sensors and a plurality of reference sensors.
The way claim 28 is phrased is unclear if the plurality is the same or not. Additionally, if claim 27 is stating that there are a plurality of sensors present, claim 28 is somewhat unclear when it describes “a plurality of the one or more” sensors.
It is suggested to amend claim 28 to recite “[[a]] the plurality of the plurality of
Claims 29-30 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 29 recites “wherein the molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensor and reference sensor is a quartz crystal microbalance.” where this is unclear because there is now a plurality of the sensors as described from claim 27. Is claim 28 specifying that only one of the MIP sensors and one of the reference sensors are a quartz crystal microbalance? Or are all of them quartz crystal microbalances?
For examination, it will be interpreted that all of the sensors are quartz crystal microbalances.
It is suggested to amend claim 29 to recite “wherein the plurality of molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors and the plurality of reference sensors [[is]] are each quartz crystal microbalances.” or similar.
Claim 30 is rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 30 recites “exhaled breath” on line 2, where it is unclear if this exhaled breath is the same or different from the one described in claim 6.
For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same.
It is suggested to amend claim 30 to recite “the exhaled breath”
Claim 31 recites “of disease specific VOCs” on line 5, where it is unclear if these disease specific VOCs are the same or different from the disease-specific VOCs described on line 2 of claim 26.
For examination, it will be interpreted that the disease specific VOCs are related to the different diseases described in claim 31, where they are different from the disease specific VOC detected in claim 26.
Claim 31 recites “exhaled breath” on line 5, where it is unclear if this exhaled breath is the same or different from the exhaled breath described in claim 26.
For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same.
It is suggested to amend claim 31 to recite “the exhaled breath”
Claims 32-33, 35 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. “The fabrication and characterization of a formaldehyde odor sensor using molecularly imprinted polymers” herein Feng in view of Dickert et al. “QCM and SAW Transducers Allow Analyte Detection From nanometer to micrometer dimensions using imprinting techniques”, herein Dickert.
Regarding claim 6, Feng teaches a modular sensor array for detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) comprising:
i. one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors comprising a polymer film molecularly imprinted with a VOC target molecule and coated on a piezoelectric substrate, wherein the resonant frequency of each sensor is sensitive to binding with the said VOC target molecule (page 378 column 1 paragraph 1 see formaldehyde is a volatile and deleterious compound, page 378 column 1 paragraph 2 into column 2 see quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) is a tiny mass detection technique and the response of the device is based on the decrease in resonant frequency of the crystal as the mass of the device increases, page 379 column 2 paragraph 1 see MIPs preparation where the result is one QCM with a MIP (the template to make the MIP being formaldehyde)), and
ii. one or more reference sensors each comprising a non-imprinted polymer film coated on a piezoelectric substrate for measuring a change in the frequency (page 379 column 2 paragraph 1 see non-imprinted polymers were synthesized under the same condition without a template, see page 381 Figure 4 where the graph shows the frequency shift on the y axis and concentration on the x axis where there are measurements for both the imprinted sensor and non-imprinted sensor);
It is described on page 381 column 1 paragraph 1 that a linear relationship between the concentration of formaldehyde and frequency shifts can be obtained, where Figure 4b on page 381 shows a graph of frequency shifts along the y axis and concentration on the x axis for the imprinted sensor, non-imprinted sensor, and linear fitting. However, it does not appear that the equation takes into account the difference between the MIP sensor and the non-imprinted sensor.
In the analogous art of quartz crystal microbalances that are transferred into chemical sensors through the use of molecularly imprinted polymers, Dickert teaches a dual electrode QCM with a reference electrode (coated with non-imprinted polymer) and sensitive electrode (honeycomb-like imprints) where the differential measurement can be performed with a mixer which allows for the unspecific adsorption phenomena to be eliminated during QCM measurements, where Dickert describes that the frequency of vibrations corresponds to mass loading (Dickert; page 528 column 1 paragraph 3, page 528 column 2 paragraph 1, page 529 column 2 paragraph 2, page 533 column 1 paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the concentration calculation of Feng such that it takes into account the frequency changes of the non-imprinted QCM because it is taught by Dickert that a differential measurement eliminates unspecific adsorption phenomena during QCM measurements (Dickert; page 529 column 2 paragraph 2).
The limitation “for detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from exhaled breath” and “wherein, the modular sensor array is configured to quantify the difference between the frequency of the one or more MIP coated piezoelectric sensors and the frequency of the one or more reference sensors to determine a concentration of the target VOC molecule in exhaled breath.” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Feng and the apparatus of modified Feng is capable of detecting VOCs from exhaled breath and quantifying the difference between the frequency of the MIP sensor and non-imprinted sensor to determine concentration of the target VOC molecule in exhaled breath. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Feng (see MPEP §2114).
Please note that the exhaled breath nor the VOC target molecule in the exhaled breath have been positively recited, and are therefore not a part of the claimed modular sensor array.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. “The fabrication and characterization of a formaldehyde odor sensor using molecularly imprinted polymers” herein Feng in view of Dickert et al. “QCM and SAW Transducers Allow Analyte Detection From nanometer to micrometer dimensions using imprinting techniques”, herein Dickert, and as evidenced by Sun (US-2019/0313944-A1).
Regarding claim 26, Feng teaches a modular sensor array for detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the modular sensor array comprising:
one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors, each comprising a polymer film molecularly imprinted with a VOC target molecule and coated on a piezoelectric substrate, wherein the resonant frequency of the sensor is sensitive to binding with the target VOC molecule (page 378 column 1 paragraph 1 see formaldehyde is a volatile and deleterious compound, page 378 column 1 paragraph 2 into column 2 see quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) is a tiny mass detection technique and the response of the device is based on the decrease in resonant frequency of the crystal as the mass of the device increases, page 379 column 2 paragraph 1 see MIPs preparation where the result is one QCM with a MIP (the template to make the MIP being formaldehyde)); and
one or more reference sensors comprising non-imprinted polymer film coated on a piezoelectric substrate (page 379 column 2 paragraph 1 see non-imprinted polymers synthesized under exactly the same condition without the template, see page 381 Figure 4 where the graph shows the frequency shift on the y axis and concentration on the x axis where there are measurements for both the imprinted sensor and non-imprinted sensor);
It is described on page 381 column 1 paragraph 1 that a linear relationship between the concentration of formaldehyde and frequency shifts can be obtained, where Figure 4b on page 381 shows a graph of frequency shifts along the y axis and concentration on the x axis for the imprinted sensor, non-imprinted sensor, and linear fitting. However, it does not appear that the equation takes into account the difference between the MIP sensor and the non-imprinted sensor.
In the analogous art of quartz crystal microbalances that are transferred into chemical sensors through the use of molecularly imprinted polymers, Dickert teaches a dual electrode QCM with a reference electrode (coated with non-imprinted polymer) and sensitive electrode (honeycomb-like imprints) where the differential measurement can be performed with a mixer which allows for the unspecific adsorption phenomena to be eliminated during QCM measurements (Dickert; page 528 column 1 paragraph 3, page 528 column 2 paragraph 1, page 529 column 2 paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the concentration calculation of Feng such that it takes into account the frequency changes of the non-imprinted QCM because it is taught by Dickert that a differential measurement eliminates unspecific adsorption phenomena during QCM measurements (Dickert; page 529 column 2 paragraph 2).
Further, the limitations “A breath analyzer device comprising a modular sensor array for detection of disease-specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from exhaled breath” and “the modular sensor array is configured to quantify the difference between the frequency response of the one or more MIP coated piezoelectric sensors and that of the one or more reference sensors to determine the concentration of the target VOC molecule in the exhaled breath.” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Feng and the apparatus of modified Feng is capable of detecting disease-specific VOCs in breath and quantifying the difference between the frequency of the MIP sensor and non-imprinted sensor to determine concentration of the target VOC molecule in exhaled breath. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Feng (see MPEP §2114).
Please note that the exhaled breath nor the VOC in the exhaled breath have been positively recited in the claim, and are therefore not a part of the claimed breath analyzer.
It is evidenced by Sun that MIPs that are selective for one or more disease or condition-associated analytes (e.g., disease or condition-associated volatile organic compounds) and that a potential source of analytes include exhaled breath, where an example of the disease is lung cancer and an example of an associated analyte is formaldehyde (Sun; [0084], [0089]).
Therefore, the formaldehyde described in Feng is a disease-specific VOC.
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. “The fabrication and characterization of a formaldehyde odor sensor using molecularly imprinted polymers” herein Feng and Dickert et al. “QCM and SAW Transducers Allow Analyte Detection From nanometer to micrometer dimensions using imprinting techniques”, herein Dickert, and in further view of Belbruno (US-2010/0039124-A1).
Regarding claim 27, modified Feng teaches the modular sensor array of claim 6. Feng does not teach comprising a plurality of the one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors and a plurality of the one or more reference sensors; and wherein each of the plurality of molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors are specific for the detection and quantification of a different VOC target molecule in exhaled breath.
In the same problem solving area of detecting target molecules using molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs), Belbruno teaches an array of MIP sensors (Belbruno; abstract, [0018]).
Specifically, Belbruno teaches a sensor array 300 that includes a plurality of MIP sensors 100 and optionally one or more non-imprinted reference polymer sensors that are arranged in a pattern such that the relative positions of the MIP sensors within the array or pattern correlate with their identities, i.e., the identities of the target molecules used to create them (Belbruno; [0018]). It is further described by [0018] of Belbruno that the entire array may comprise unique sensors or may include redundant sensors depending on the application.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the sensor of modified Feng such that it is an array of unique imprinted sensors and non-imprinted sensors as taught by Belbruno because Belbruno teaches that an array of unique sensors has the benefit of detecting a plurality of different target molecules (Belbruno; [0018]).
Please note that the exhaled breath nor the VOC target molecule in the exhaled breath have been positively recited, and are thus not a part of the claimed modular sensor array.
Regarding claim 28, modified Feng teaches the modular sensor array of claim 27. The limitations of claim 28 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Feng and the apparatus of modified Feng is capable of having exhaled breath travel through the plurality of MIP coated piezoelectric sensors and the plurality of reference sensors in-series. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Feng (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the exhaled breath has not been positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a part of the claimed modular sensor array.
Regarding claim 29, modified Feng teaches the modular sensor array of claim 28. Feng further teaches wherein the molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensor and reference sensor is a quartz crystal microbalance (Feng; page 379 column 1 see tiny mass detection of QCM with the highly selectivity and stability of MIPs).
Feng has been modified by Belbruno to have an array of QCMs that are imprinted and QCMs that are non-imprinted.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. “The fabrication and characterization of a formaldehyde odor sensor using molecularly imprinted polymers” herein Feng, Dickert et al. “QCM and SAW Transducers Allow Analyte Detection From nanometer to micrometer dimensions using imprinting techniques”, herein Dickert, and Belbruno (US-2010/0039124-A1), and in further view of Sun (US-2019/0313944-A1).
Regarding claim 30, modified Feng teaches the modular sensor array of claim 29. Feng teaches that the target is formaldehyde, where Feng has been modified with Belbruno to teach an array of QCMs that are imprinted and non-imprinted. However, modified Feng does not teach that the VOCs detected quantified in exhaled breath are markers for disease.
In the analogous art of molecularly imprinted polymers, Sun teaches detection of one or more analytes in a sample such as a breath sample (Sun; abstract, [0005]).
Specifically, Sun teaches where one or more analytes are associated with a disease or condition, where devices with MIPs selective for one or more disease can be used as a diagnostic device to detect analytes associated with the particular disease or condition, where a potential source of analytes includes the breath. [0089] of Sun describes that the disease is lung cancer and the analyte is formaldehyde. Sun further describes toluene ([0089], [0094]), pentanal ([0089]), octanal ([0089]), hexanal ([0080], [0089], [0096]), nonanal ([0089], heptanal ([0089]), acetone ([0089], [0097]), as possible analytes for various diseases/conditions.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the array of imprinted QCM sensors of modified Feng such that they are imprinted with the various analytes as described by Sun because Sun teaches that it is desirable to have devices that can provide quantitative, selective, sensitive, and early detection of analytes associated with a disease (Sun; [0004]).
Additionally, Belbruno is silent with regards to specific target molecules, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional target molecules. Sun provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use pentanal, octanal, hexanal, nonanal, heptanal, and acetone as target molecules for the detection of various diseases/conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the imprinted QCMs in addition to the formaldehyde QCM of Feng detect the analytes of Sun, because it is taught by Sun that these are desirable analytes to be detected.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. “The fabrication and characterization of a formaldehyde odor sensor using molecularly imprinted polymers” herein Feng and Dickert et al. “QCM and SAW Transducers Allow Analyte Detection From nanometer to micrometer dimensions using imprinting techniques”, herein Dickert, and in further view of Sun (US-2019/0313944-A1).
Regarding claim 31, modified Feng teaches the breath analyzer device of claim 26. Feng teaches the detection of formaldehyde, which has been evidenced by Sun to be an analyte for the detection of lung cancer.
While the limitations of claim 31 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, it is unclear if the structural limitations of modified Feng are capable of allowing the sensor array to be swapped out with other sensor arrays and detecting different diseases as currently Feng only teaches detecting formaldehyde.
In the analogous art of molecularly imprinted polymers, Sun teaches detection of one or more analytes in a sample such as a breath sample (Sun; abstract, [0005]).
Specifically, Sun teaches where one or more analytes are associated with a disease or condition, where devices with MIPs selective for one or more disease can be used as a diagnostic device to detect analytes associated with the particular disease or condition, where a potential source of analytes includes the breath. Sun further describes toluene ([0089], [0094]), pentanal ([0089]), octanal ([0089]), hexanal ([0080], [0089], [0096]), nonanal ([0089], heptanal ([0089]), acetone ([0089], [0097]), as possible analytes for various diseases/conditions.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the imprinted sensor of modified Feng such that it can detect the other analytes as described by Sun because Sun teaches that it is desirable to have devices that can provide quantitative, selective, sensitive, and early detection of analytes associated with a disease (Sun; [0004]).
The limitations of claim 31 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Feng and the apparatus of modified Feng is capable of detecting a disease and capable of allowing the sensor array to be swapped out with other sensor arrays, and is capable of detecting different diseases. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Feng (see MPEP §2114).
Further, please note that the exhaled breath nor VOCs in the exhaled breath have been positively recited and are therefore not a part of the claimed breath analyzer.
Claim(s) 32-33, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. “The fabrication and characterization of a formaldehyde odor sensor using molecularly imprinted polymers” herein Feng and Dickert et al. “QCM and SAW Transducers Allow Analyte Detection From nanometer to micrometer dimensions using imprinting techniques”, herein Dickert, and Sun (US-2019/0313944-A1) and in further view of Belbruno (US-2010/0039124-A1).
Regarding claim 32, modified Feng teaches the breath analyzer device of claim 31. Feng does not teach comprising a plurality of the one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors and a plurality of the one or more reference sensors; and wherein each of the plurality of molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors are each specific for the detection and quantification of a different VOC target molecule.
In the same problem solving area of detecting target molecules using molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs), Belbruno teaches an array of MIP sensors (Belbruno; abstract, [0018]).
Specifically, Belbruno teaches a sensor array 300 that includes a plurality of MIP sensors 100 and optionally one or more non-imprinted reference polymer sensors that are arranged in a pattern such that the relative positions of the MIP sensors within the array or pattern correlate with their identities, i.e., the identities of the target molecules used to create them (Belbruno; [0018]). It is further described by [0018] of Belbruno that the entire array may comprise unique sensors or may include redundant sensors depending on the application.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the sensor of modified Feng such that it is an array of unique imprinted sensors and non-imprinted sensors as taught by Belbruno because Belbruno teaches that an array of unique sensors has the benefit of detecting a plurality of different target molecules (Belbruno; [0018]).
Additionally, one skilled in the art would find it obvious that the analytes of Sun may be used as the target analytes with the array of unique imprinted sensors.
Regarding claim 33, modified Feng teaches the breath analyzer device of claim 32.
The limitations of claim 33 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Feng and the apparatus of modified Feng is capable of having exhaled breath travel through the plurality of MIP coated piezoelectric sensors and the plurality of reference sensors in-series. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Feng (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the exhaled breath has not been positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a part of the claimed breath analyzer.
Regarding claim 35, modified Feng teaches the breath analyzer device of claim 33. Feng has been modified by Sun such that the various analytes to be detected are for various diseases.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments dated 04/01/2026 have been fully considered. Due to amendments filed 04/01/2026, the rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 12/01/2025 are withdrawn. However, in light of a new search for the newly presented amendments, a new rejection is set forth above.
In response to applicant's argument on page 6 regarding claim 6 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., plurality of discrete, electrically isolated piezoelectric sensors arranged as modular, swappable arrays, modular hardware, electrical isolation, or multiplexing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
While claim 6 does state in the preamble that it is a modular sensor array, there are no limitations regarding modular hardware. Further, claim 6 does not require a plurality of sensors. Claim 6 requires one or more MIP piezoelectric sensors and one or more reference sensors. Further, there is no description in claim 6 that the sensors are electrically isolated piezoelectric sensors.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the sensor array taught by Belbruno is an integrated pattern of MIP in a single chip, and that it uses resistance changes to detect a compound and that the sensors taught are fixed onto a substrate and are not designed to be physically removed or swapped.
It is respectfully noted that Belbruno is not currently being used for resistance changes, rather for teaching the concept of having an array of imprinted and non-imprinted sensors. The measurement will remain the frequency changes as taught by Feng (newly of record).
With regards to arguments that the sensors are not designed to be physically removed or swapped, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights