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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1–6, 9–12, 14, 17–25, 29, 30, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burak et al. (US Pub. # 20210036678), hereinafter referred to as Burak.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Burak teaches, “A sensing apparatus (claim 21: method), comprising: a resonator, wherein the resonator comprises a piezoelectric material (Fig. 1, 1a, ref. # 104, 1007a, 1005a; para. [0030]) and two or more electrodes (115/119 of 113; 1015a/1022a; [0030, 0050, 0079]), a reflector adjacent to the resonator, the reflector comprising a Bragg reflector having a stack of alternating layers of high and low acoustic impedance materials (1013a, 113 including 123/125 or 127/129 for example); a receptor coupled to the resonator (Fig. 1a, ref. # 168, 468a-c; [0080–0087]); and an amplifier coupled to the resonator to implement an oscillator (Fig. 8a, 8b; 800a, 800b; [0201]), wherein the resonator has at least one first parameter value associated with an inherent characteristic of the piezoelectric material, and the resonator has at least one second parameter value when a molecule binds to the receptor, and wherein the difference between the first and the second parameter values is indicative of a type of the molecule ([0080]; see also [0081–0087], discussion of resonant frequency shifts in correlation with detecting presence of specific molecules/environmental variables).”
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 25, Burak teaches, “wherein the resonator comprises a free-standing resonator, and wherein an air cavity of the free-standing resonator is sealed using a sealing layer; wherein the sealing layer comprises oxide or nitride materials (Fig. 4a, ref. # 483a; [0042, 0143]; cavity sealed as described to form air cavity by 403a).”
Regarding claims 3 and 24, Burak teaches, “a heating element coupled to the receptor [0322–0328, 0339, 0340, 0347, 0348].”
Regarding claims 4 and 22, Burak teaches, “an impedance matching layer between the receptor and the resonator (Fig. 1a, 167 between 168 and 104; see para. [0101, 0142]; 167 adjusts acoustic coupling in same manner as described by applicant in para. [0031] of published spec.).”
Regarding claim 5, Burak teaches, “wherein the molecule comprises a molecule in gaseous, vapor, liquid, or solid phases [0023, 0030, 0150, 0156, 0158, 0160].”
Regarding claims 6 and 23, Burak teaches, “wherein an application of an electric field between the two or more electrodes generates a longitudinal and/or transverse and/or surface acoustic wave [0033, 0034, 0037, 0050, 0102].”
Regarding claim 10, Burak teaches, “wherein the impedance matching layer comprises a plurality of materials of different acoustic impedance values (ref. # 167; para. [0078, 0088, 0089, 0104, 0142]).”
Regarding claim 11, Burak teaches, “wherein the impedance matching layer covers an area smaller, equal, or larger than one of the two or more electrodes (167 in Fig. 1a covering area larger than 115 or 119).”
Regarding claim 12, Burak teaches, “wherein the piezoelectric material comprises Aluminum Scandium Nitride (AlScN), Aluminum Nitride (AIN), or Zinc Oxide (ZnO) (see para. [0013, 0014, 0018, 0043]).”
Regarding claim 14, Burak teaches, “wherein the receptor covers an area smaller, equal, or larger than one of the two or more electrodes (binding material/receptors on 168 smaller than 115; see para. [0080–0088]).”
Regarding claims 17 and 29, Burak teaches, “wherein the receptor comprises at least one of porous materials, polymers, self-assembled monolayers and biomolecules (biomolecules deleted from claim 29, still included with claim 17) (see para. [0083–0085]).”
Regarding claims 18 and 30, Burak teaches, “where the first and second parameter values comprise at least one of S-parameters, impedance, resonant frequency, quality factor, motional capacitance, motional resistance, motional inductance and static capacitance (see para. [0080] and all discussion related to resonant frequency).”
Regarding claim 19, Burak teaches, “A detection system comprising an array of the sensing apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 9c, para. [0195, 0039–0350]).”
Regarding claim 20, Burak teaches, “wherein the at least one of the resonators of the array has at least one third parameter value and at least one fourth parameter value when a combination of molecules binds to the receptor coupled to the at least one of the resonators of the array, and wherein the difference between the at least one first parameter value and the at least one third parameter value is indicative of a first type of the combination of molecules, and wherein the difference between the at least one second parameter value and the at least one fourth parameter value is indicative of a second type of the combination of molecules (see para. [0339–0350]; described are many different sensing regions with different resonant frequencies, detecting many different environmental variables/molecules).”
Regarding claim 33, Burak teaches, “applying a binding layer to the sensor surface using patterning techniques to promote selective receptor adhesion and enhance receptor adhesion [0080–0087].”
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak (US Pub. # 20210036678) in view of Bell et al. (US Pub. # 20210140922), hereinafter referred to as Bell.
Regarding claims 13 and 26, Burak teaches its devices integrated with circuits (see para. [0349, 0351, 0353–0355]). Burak does not appear to teach, “wherein the resonator is integrated with a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) integrated circuit.” However, Bell teaches the deficiencies of Burak (see para. [0002, 0028]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burak’s invention to include wherein the resonator is integrated with a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) integrated circuit.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Burak’s invention for at least the purpose of utilizing the resonator structure integrated with CMOS to provide a thermistor.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak (US Pub. # 20210036678) in view of Wilkinson et al. (US Pub. # 20150192548), hereinafter referred to as Wilkinson.
Regarding claims 15, 16, 27, and 28, Burak does not appear to teach, “wherein the receptor comprises a metal organic framework (MOF); wherein the MOF is selectively deposited using a top-down and/or bottom-up growth method utilizing printing, gas phase deposition, liquid phase deposition or combination thereof.” However, Wilkinson teaches the deficiencies of Burak (see para. [0002, 0021, 0036, 0043]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burak’s invention to include wherein the receptor comprises a metal organic framework (MOF); wherein the MOF is selectively deposited using a top-down and/or bottom-up growth method utilizing printing, gas phase deposition, liquid phase deposition or combination thereof.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Burak’s invention for at least the purpose of adsorbing or binding one or more substances/target molecules of interest.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak (US Pub. # 20210036678) in view of Therrien et al. (US Pub. # 20180109239), hereinafter referred to as Therrien.
Regarding claim 31, Burak does not appear to teach, “performing a differential measurement of resonant frequency signals generated from multiple sensors using passive or active frequency mixing circuitry.” However, Therrien teaches the deficiencies of Burak (para. [0002, 0119, 0120, 0123]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burak’s invention to include performing a differential measurement of resonant frequency signals generated from multiple sensors using passive or active frequency mixing circuitry.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Burak’s invention for at least the purpose of enabling fabrication of arrays of the SAW devices for testing multiple analytes.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak (US Pub. # 20210036678) in view of Johal et al. (US Pub. # 20120100636), hereinafter referred to as Johal.
Regarding claim 32, Burak does not appear to teach, “performing frequency division operations of resonant frequency signals generated from multiple sensors.” However, Johal teaches the deficiencies of Burak (para. [0002, 0011, 0025]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burak’s invention to include performing frequency division operations of resonant frequency signals generated from multiple sensors.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Burak’s invention for at least the purpose of detecting a presence of a subject material in a fluid sample using at least one resonating sensor immiscible in the fluid sample.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1–6, and 9–33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Notably, independent claim 1 was amended to include language from both claims 2 and 7, not previously considered in combination, and independent claim 21 was amended to include language from claim 7, not previously considered.
As an aside, claim 2 was amended to include language from original claim 8, but does not show the underlined language for the new material.
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 RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights