DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on the Raggi, et al. application filed with the Office on 9 February 2024.
Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to US Provisional Patent Application, 63/484,068, filed on 9 February 2023. Thus, the effective filing date of the instant application is 9 February 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9 February 2024, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: elements 100, 102, and 105, shown in Figure 1; 200, 201, 202, 204, 208, 209, 210, and 211, shown in Figure 2; 300, 301, 302, 303, and 340, shown in Figure 3; 400, 401, 402, 404, and 405, shown in Figure 4; 500, 501, 502, 504 and 505, shown in Figure 5; 606, 607 and 609, shown in Figure 6; and, 701, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722 and 723, shown in Figure 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first instant of an abbreviation, in this present case, “GFET”, should be properly identified as to what the abbreviation stands in place of. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Applicant has provided such explicit definitions at [0052]-[0059] of the instant specification as filed.
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 1-4 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.
There is confusion as to whether or not the first instance of the term “GFET arrays” is the same as the subsequently recited, “an electronic GFET array”, given the manner in which the limitations are recited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sensor holder board pin headers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for the same reasoning as being dependent from rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the communication board sockets". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for the same reasoning as being dependent from rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the collected urine". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for the same reasoning as being dependent from rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the communication board". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for the same reasoning as being dependent from rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the microRNA sensor holder board". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for the same reasoning as being dependent from rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the testing results". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for the same reasoning as being dependent from rejected claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the communication board". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasoning as being dependent from rejected claim 2.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the microRNA analysis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasoning as being dependent from rejected claim 2.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the sensor holder board". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasoning as being dependent from rejected claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the box". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the urine liquid container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the no-load response". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the liquid vessel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the liquid content". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the sensor holder board". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the GFET arrays”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the smart lid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the test". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the results". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims in View of the Prior Art
The instant claims are not rejected based on any prior art references. The closest prior art reference is considered to be a published paper to N. Gao, et al. (“Specific detection of biomolecules in physiological solutions using graphene transistor biosensors”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 113(51): p. 146033-14638, December 2016; hereinafter, “Gao”). Gao discloses a field effect transistor (FET) array with graphene (1st ¶, left column, p. 14634), wherein said graphene FET devices are used to monitor prostate specific antigen, PSA, a biomarker for prostate cancer (Figure 3). However, Gao does not teach or suggest a vessel for containing urine having a top open end, a cap attachable to the top open end of the vessel, and an electronic sensor holder board containing a GFET array attached to the inner surface of the cap, as required by instant independent claims 1 and 4.
Interview with the Examiner
If at any point during the prosecution it is believe an interview with the Examiner would further the prosecution of an application, please consider this option.
The Automated Interview Request form (AIR) is available to request an interview to be scheduled with the Examiner. First, an authorization for internet communications regarding the case should be filed prior or with an AIR online request.
The internet communication authorization form (SB/0439), which authorizes or withdraws authorization for internet-based communication (e.g., video conferencing, email, etc.) for the application must be signed by the applicant or the attorney/agent for applicant. The form can be found at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
The AIR form can be filled out online, and is automatically forwarded to the Examiner, who will call to confirm a requested time and date, or set up a mutually convenient time for the interview. The form can be found at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html
The Examiner encourages, but does not require, interviews by the USPTO Microsoft Teams video conferencing. This system allows for file-sharing along audio conferencing. Microsoft Teams can be used as an internet browser add-on in Microsoft IE, Google Chrome, or Mozilla Foxfire, or as a temporary Java-based application on these browsers. Steps for joining an Examiner setup Microsoft Teams can be found at the USPTO website:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice#step3
Additionally, a blank email to the Examiner at the time of a telephonic interview can be used for a reply to easily allow for Microsoft Teams communication. Please note, policy guidelines regarding Internet communications are detailed at MPEP §500-502.3, and office policy regarding interviews are detailed at MPEP §713.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C BALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5119. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/J. Christopher Ball/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
22 October 2025