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 .
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections.
Applicant argues that Independent Claim 1: Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "a capillary array disposed within a top surface of the remote capacitive sensor, the capillary array being configured to allow charged particles to pass through the capillary array and charge the capacitor." The Office Action has asserted that Willis discloses the capillary array disposed within a top surface of the remote capacitive sensor of claim 1.
The Office Action cites to paragraph [0133] of Willis, which recites, inter alia, "Dynamic
changes occurring in tissue fluid adjacent to the implanted working electrode, physiological lag
time associated with glucose transport across the endothelium of capillaries into interstitial
fluid, cellular consumption of the analyte and biological electrical noise can result in a non-
steady state response." Applicant respectfully submits that Willis's use of the word "capillaries"
fails to disclose a capillary array disposed within a top surface of a remote capacitive
sensor. Rather, Willis describes glucose transport across the endothelium of capillaries into
interstitial fluid that occurs in tissue fluid adjacent to the implanted working electrode, which
makes no teaching or suggestion of a capillary array as recited by claim 1. Applicant respectfully
submits that glucose transport across the endothelium of capillaries that occurs in tissue fluid
fails to disclose a capillary array disposed within a top surface of the remote capacitive sensor.
Furthermore, Willis's description of glucose transport across the endothelium of capillaries also
fails to disclose a capillary array being configured to allow charged particles to pass through the
capillary array and charge a capacitor. As such, Willis fails to anticipate, teach, or make obvious
at least the above recited features of claim 1.
Independent Claim 18
Claim 18 recites, inter alia, "performing a plasma process in the process chamber." The
Office Action has asserted that Willis discloses the performing a plasma process in a process
chamber. Office Action at 6. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The Office Action cites to paragraph [0018] of Willis, which recites, "FIG. 8b shows an
example of an in vivo configuration for a partially implanted three-electrode cell (300d)
including an implanted working electrode (W), a counter electrode (350) in electrical contact
with a skin surface, an implanted reference electrode (R), a diffusion limiting barrier (330), a
skin surface (310), a skin thickness (315), subcutaneous tissue and interstitial fluid (320), an
active zone (325), biofouling layer 340, resistance (Rs) between the working and counter
electrodes and uncompensated resistance (Ru) between the working and reference electrodes."
However, Applicant respectfully submits that Willis fails to disclose performing a plasma
process in the process chamber, as no mention of any plasma process is made in paragraph
[0018] of Willis. As such, Willis fails to anticipate, teach, or make obvious at least the above
recited features of claim 18.
Examiner’s Response
Applicant’s remarks have been full considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant argues Willis’s discussion of “capillaries refer only to biological capillaries and therefore fails to disclose a capillary array disposed within a top surface of a remote capacitive sensor, and further fails to disclose the capillary array being configured to allow charged particles to pass through the charge capacitor.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “capillary array” encompasses a plurality of capillaries/capillary pathways arranged such that transport occurs through multiple capillary channels (i.e. an “array” of capillary conduits). Willis expressly discusses analyte transport “across the endothelium of capillaries” into interstitial fluid adjacent the sensing electrode (para 0133). That disclosure describes multiple capillary pathways supplying/transporting charged species into the region adjacent the sensor interface. Further, the limitation “disposed within a top surface” is interpreted broadly as the capillary structures being arranged at/within the region proximate the surface through which species enter the sensing region. Willis discloses the capillary-mediated transport occurring in tissue fluid adjacent to the implemented sensing interface. Thus, Willis reasonably teaches the claimed spatial relationship. With respect to “configured to allow charged particles to pass through… and charge the capacitor” Willis teaches that charged species/analytes transported into the sensing region cause measurable electrical effects at the sensor circuitry. When charged particles accumulate at or near a capacitive sensing structure, capacitive charging is an inherent electrical result of that disclosed operation. Applicant’s argument improperly requires Willis to recite the identical phrase “charge the capacitor” but claim does not require that operation to produce that recited effect.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant argues that Willis fails to disclose “performing a plasma process in the process chamber” and asserts that paragraph 0018 of Willis does not explicitly mention a plasma process. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim 18 broadly recites “performing a plasma process in the process chamber” without further limiting the plasma type, operating parameters, or specific plasma-generating mechanism. Willis describes an electrochemical system operating within a defined chamber environment involving electrodes, electrical potentials, ionic species and charged particles transport through biological and fluid media (see Willis para 0018 and 0133 and Fig. 8b). Willis’s disclosure of electrically driven charged particle behavior within a controlled chamber environment inherently encompasses plasma processes as broadly claimed. Plasma is defined as a partially ionized medium containing charged particles responsive to electric fields., which is consistent with Willis’s disclosure of ion transport, electrical interaction, and electrode driven processes occurring within the system. Further, the “process chamber” of claim 18 reads on the defined electrochemical environment disclosed in Willis, including the implanted electrode configuration and surrounding medium in which electrically driven interactions occur. The claim does not require a vacuum chamber, gas plasma or plasma source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-17, 19 and 20 are allowed.
With respect to claim 7, the prior art fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim: “a mask layer over the second conductive layer;
a first hole through the mask layer, the second conductive layer, and the first dielectric layer, the first hole exposing a first portion of the first conductive layer;
a first readout hole through the mask layer, the second conductive layer, and the first dielectric layer, the first hole exposing a second portion of the first conductive layer, the second portion having a greater surface area than the first portion; and
a second readout hole through the mask layer and the first dielectric layer, the second readout hole exposing a third portion of the second conductive layer, the third portion having a greater surface area than the first portion.”
With respect to claim 19, the prior art fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim: “discloses the method of claim 18, wherein reading out the voltage of the capacitor comprises coupling a first contact pad and a second contact pad of the remote capacitive sensor with a voltmeter, the voltmeter having an input impedance, a product of the input impedance with a capacitance of the capacitor being greater than 50 seconds.”
With respect to claim 20, the prior art fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim: “testing the voltage of the capacitor to determine if relative ion transport is improved;
performing another test cycle with a plasma process parameter adjusted using the voltage of the capacitor; and
repeating the steps of testing the voltage of the capacitor and performing additional test cycles until relative ion transport reaches a desired level.”
Claims 8-13, 16 and 17 are allowable due to their dependency on claim 7; claim 14 is allowable due to its dependency on claim 13; claim 15 is allowable due to its dependency on claim 14.
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 1-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willis (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0213079).
With respect to claim 1, Willis et al. discloses an apparatus for plasma measurement, the apparatus comprising:
an electrode (see electrode W shown in Fig. 7a) within a remote capacitive sensor (para 0063, lines 7-15);
a capacitor within the remote capacitive sensor (para 0063, lines 7-15), the capacitor coupled with the electrode (see electrode W shown in Fig. 7a); and
a capillary array disposed within a top surface of the remote capacitive sensor (para 0133, lines 6-15), the capillary array being configured to allow charged particles to pass through the capillary array and charge the capacitor (para 0133, lines 6-15).
With respect to claim 2, Willis et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the remote capacitive sensor comprises a metal box, the metal box containing the electrode and the capacitor (see electrode W shown in Fig. 7a).
With repsect to claim 3, Willis et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the remote capacitive sensor further comprises a semiconductor wafer and a multi-layer stack over the semiconductor wafer (para 0074, lines 1-10).
With respect to claim 4, Willis et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein capillaries of the capillary array extend into the multi- layer stack to expose portions of a first conductive layer of the multi-layer stack (para 0133, lines 6-15).
With respect to claim 5, Willis et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the capacitor comprises the first conductive layer of the multi-layer stack, a second conductive layer of the multi-layer stack, and a dielectric layer of the multi-layer stack, the dielectric layer being between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (para 0074, lines 1-10).
With respect to claim 6, Willis et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the remote capacitive sensor is free of batteries and transistors (para 0018, lines 1-10).
With respect to claim 18, Willis et al. discloses a method for plasma measurement, the method comprising a test cycle, the test cycle comprising:
setting an initial voltage on a capacitor of a remote capacitive sensor (see electrode W shown in Fig. 7a);
loading the remote capacitive sensor into a process chamber (para 0018, lines 1-10);
performing a plasma process in the process chamber while the remote capacitive sensor is in the process chamber (para 0018, lines 1-10);
removing the remote capacitive sensor from the process chamber (para 0133, lines 6-15); and
reading out voltage of the capacitor from the remote capacitive sensor (para 0018, lines 1-10).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FARHANA AKHTER HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Eman A Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/FARHANA A HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858