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 Objections
Claims 5, 10, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, the claimed, “the molecule” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It appears as though claim 5 should depend from claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the claimed, “e.g” should be removed from the claim, to eliminate any ambiguity of what is positively set forth as the material.
Regarding claim 18, the claimed, “the first and second parameter values” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It appears as though claim 18 should depend from claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 5, 17, 18, 21, 23, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edmonson et al. (US Pub. # 20080315718), hereinafter referred to as Edmonson.
Regarding claim 1, Edmonson teaches, “A sensing apparatus, comprising: a resonator (Fig. 3, 4), wherein the resonator comprises a piezoelectric material (405) and two or more electrodes (410, 420), a reflector (430, 435) adjacent to the resonator (see para. [0037–0038]); and a receptor (440) coupled to the resonator (see para. [0039]).”
Regarding claim 2, Edmonson teaches, “an amplifier coupled to the resonator to implement an oscillator, wherein the resonator has at least one first parameter value associated with an inherent characteristic of the piezoelectric material (see Fig.3 and [0032, 0034]; oscillator has first/second resonant frequency f0 associated with inherent characteristic of 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 (see [0035, 0039]).”
Regarding claim 5, Edmonson teaches, “wherein the molecule comprises a molecule in gaseous, vapor, liquid, or solid phases [0007].”
Regarding claims 17 and 29, Edmonson teaches, “wherein the receptor comprises at least one of porous materials, polymers, self-assembled monolayers and biomolecules (see pg. 51, section III, of “Clues From Digital Radio…” cited in [0039] of Edmonson, which was incorporated by reference).”
Regarding claims 18 and 30, Edmonson 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 [0032, 0034, 0035, 0039–0041].”
Regarding claim 21, Edmonson teaches, “A method for detecting a molecule (para. [0027, 0035]), comprising: coupling a resonator to an amplifier to form an oscillator (Fig. 3 and para. [0034]), wherein the resonator (Fig. 3, 4) comprises a piezoelectric material (405) and two or more electrodes (410, 420), wherein the resonator has at least one first parameter value of the piezoelectric material ([0032, 0037]; oscillator has first/second resonant frequency f0 associated with inherent characteristic of piezoelectric material); disposing a reflector (Fig. 4, ref. # 430, 435; para. [0038]) adjacent to the resonator; coupling a receptor (440) to the resonator [0039], wherein the resonator has at least one second parameter value when the molecule binds to the receptor, determining a type of the molecule in response to a detection of a difference between the first parameter value and the second parameter value, wherein the difference between the first parameter value and the second parameter value is indicative of a type of the molecule (para. [0035, 0039]).”
Regarding claim 23, Edmonson teaches, “applying an electric field between the two or more electrodes to generate a longitudinal and/or transverse and/or surface acoustic wave (para. [0046]).”
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 12, 14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morton et al. (US Pub. # 20170168018), hereinafter referred to as Morton.
Regarding claim 1, Morton teaches, “A sensing apparatus (ref. # 50; para. [0093]), comprising: a resonator (Fig. 3), wherein the resonator comprises a piezoelectric material (22) and two or more electrodes (20, 28), a reflector (14) adjacent to the resonator [0093]; and a receptor (36, 38; [0089]) coupled to the resonator [0095].”
Regarding claim 6, Morton 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 [0094].”
Regarding claim 7, Morton teaches, “wherein the reflector comprises a Bragg reflector having a stack of alternating layers of high and low acoustic impedance materials [0077].”
Regarding claim 12, Morton teaches, “wherein the piezoelectric material comprises Aluminum Scandium Nitride (AlScN), Aluminum Nitride (AIN), or Zinc Oxide (ZnO) (see para. [0078]).”
Regarding claim 14, Morton teaches, “wherein the receptor covers an area smaller, equal, or larger than one of the two or more electrodes [0095].”
Regarding claim 19, Morton teaches, “A detection system comprising an array of the sensing apparatus of claim 1 (see para. [0099]).”
Regarding claim 20, Morton teaches, “wherein at least one of the resonators of the array has at least one first parameter value and at least one second parameter value, 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 at least para. [0094, 0099, 0103]; discussion of resonant frequency changes/shifts with changes to/indication of presence and/or quantity of molecules bound to functional material. This in combination with “array” teaches any multiple number of combination of differential calculations directly correlated with the number of sensors in the array system.).”
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) 3 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonson (US Pub. # 20080315718) in view of Oster et al. (US Pub. # 20180003677), hereinafter referred to as Oster.
Regarding claims 3 and 24, Edmonson does not appear to teach, “a heating element coupled to the receptor.” However, Oster teaches the deficiencies of Edmonson (see para. [0053]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edmonson’s invention to include a heating element coupled to the receptor.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Edmonson’s invention for at least the purpose of allowing for the release of species from the receptor layer.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 11, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonson (US Pub. # 20080315718) in view of McAllister et al. (US Pat. # 5656428), hereinafter referred to as McAllister.
Regarding claims 4, 10, 11, and 22, Edmonson does not appear to teach, “an impedance matching layer between the receptor and the resonator; wherein the impedance matching layer comprises a plurality of materials of different acoustic impedance values (e.g., oxide or nitride materials); wherein the impedance matching layer covers an area smaller, equal, or larger than one of the two or more electrodes.” However, McAllister teaches the deficiencies of Edmonson (see col. 1, ln. 5–7; col. 6, ln. 50–51; col. 9, ln. 50–67, col. 10, ln. 1–12). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edmonson’s invention to include an impedance matching layer between the receptor and the resonator; wherein the impedance matching layer comprises a plurality of materials of different acoustic impedance values (e.g., oxide or nitride materials); wherein the impedance matching layer covers an area smaller, equal, or larger than one of the two or more electrodes.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Edmonson’s invention for at least the purpose of increasing the efficiency of detection of acoustic energy emissions.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonson (US Pub. # 20080315718) in view of Lin et al. (US Pub. # 20190267961), hereinafter referred to as Lin.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Edmonson does not appear to teach, “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.” However, Lin teaches the deficiencies of Edmonson (see para. [0013, 0016, 0017]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edmonson’s invention to include 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.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Edmonson’s invention for at least the purpose of providing a hermetically sealed resonator structure with reliable performance over the lifetime.
Claim(s) 13 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonson (US Pub. # 20080315718) in view of Bell et al. (US Pub. # 20210140922), hereinafter referred to as Bell.
Regarding claims 13 and 26, Edmonson 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 Edmonson (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 Edmonson’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 Edmonson’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 Edmonson (US Pub. # 20080315718) in view of Wilkinson et al. (US Pub. # 20150192548), hereinafter referred to as Wilkinson.
Regarding claims 15, 16, 27, and 28, Edmonson 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 Edmonson (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 Edmonson’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 Edmonson’s invention for at least the purpose of adsorbing or binding one or more substances/target molecules of interest.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonson (US Pub. # 20080315718) in view of Morton (US Pub. # 20170168018).
Regarding claim 25, Edmonson does not appear to teach, “wherein the piezoelectric material comprises Aluminum Scandium Nitride (AlScN), Aluminum nitride (AIN), or Zinc Oxide (ZnO).” However, Morton teaches the deficiencies of Edmonson (para. [0002, 00078]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edmonson’s invention to include wherein the piezoelectric material comprises Aluminum Scandium Nitride (AlScN), Aluminum nitride (AIN), or Zinc Oxide (ZnO).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Edmonson’s invention for at least the purpose of enabling a BAW resonator to exhibit a dominant shear response upon application of an alternating current signal across a top side electrode and a bottom side electrode.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonson (US Pub. # 20080315718) in view of Therrien et al. (US Pub. # 20180109239), hereinafter referred to as Therrien.
Regarding claim 31, Edmonson 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 Edmonson (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 Edmonson’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 Edmonson’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 Edmonson (US Pub. # 20080315718) in view of Johal et al. (US Pub. # 20120100636), hereinafter referred to as Johal.
Regarding claim 32, Edmonson does not appear to teach, “performing frequency division operations of resonant frequency signals generated from multiple sensors.” However, Johal teaches the deficiencies of Edmonson (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 Edmonson’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 Edmonson’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.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonson (US Pub. # 20080315718) in view of Cable et al. (US Pub. # 20160282312), hereinafter referred to as Cable.
Regarding claim 33, Edmonson does not appear to teach, “applying a binding layer to the sensor surface using patterning techniques to promote selective receptor adhesion and enhance receptor adhesion.” However, Cable teaches the deficiencies of Edmonson (para. [0038, 0042–0046]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edmonson’s invention to include applying a binding layer to the sensor surface using patterning techniques to promote selective receptor adhesion and enhance receptor adhesion.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Edmonson’s invention for at least the purpose of using well-known methods for securing the receptor materials on the sensing device layers, allowing selective patterns according to the desired sensing application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach sensing apparatuses with configurations similar to the present application.
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