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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1, Fig. 6-9, Fig. 13-15, Fig. 17-20, and Fig. 22-23 each contain text that is fuzzy and difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the period at the end of line 2 should be removed and replaced with a semicolon;
“Where” in line 3 should be changed to “wherein”;
a semicolon should be added at the end of each of lines 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9;
a comma should be added at the end of line 8;
line 10 should be amended to recite “VL is around 1,700 meters per second; and”;
line 11 should be amended to recite “a ratio between VL and VT is around 2”; and
a period should be added at the end of the claim (line 11).
-Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the period at the end of line 2 should be removed and replaced with a semicolon;
“Where” in line 3 should be changed to “wherein”;
a semicolon should be added at the end of each of lines 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9;
a comma should be added at the end of line 8;
line 10 should be amended to recite “VL is around 1,700 meters per second; and”;
line 11 should be amended to recite “a ratio between VL and VT is around 2”; and
a period should be added at the end of the claim (line 11).
-Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the period at the end of line 10 should be removed and replaced with a semicolon;
“Where” in line 11 should be changed to “wherein”;
a semicolon should be added at the end of each of lines 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19;
a comma should be added at the end of line 16;
line 18 should be amended to recite “VL is around 1,700 meters per second; and”;
line 19 should be amended to recite “a ratio between VL and VT is around 2”.
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.
Claims 4, 13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the eigenvalue equation” in line 2; “the first and second kinds” in line 5; “the radius” and “the virus” in line 7; and “the sound velocities” and “the longitudinal and transverse waves” in line 8.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the eigenvalue equation” in line 2; “the first and second kinds” in line 5; “the radius” and “the virus” in line 7; and “the sound velocities” and “the longitudinal and transverse waves” in line 8.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “the eigenvalue equation” in line 10; “the first and second kinds” in line 13; “the radius” and “the virus” in line 15; and “the sound velocities” and “the longitudinal and transverse waves” in line 16.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Claims 17-20 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser (WO-2004101003-A1) in view of Pearce et al (U.S. Pat. No. 4066969, hereinafter “Pearce”) and Hempel (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0206108).
Regarding Claim 1, Leeser teaches a pathogen detection method comprising: collecting a sample that potentially contains a pathogen (top of page 4, determine microorganisms within a sample; page 4, fifth full paragraph, microorganisms include bacteria and viruses); producing a triangle wave form output (claim 7 and top of page 3, triangular waveform of AC voltage); transmitting a signal associated with the triangle wave form over a plurality of frequencies (paragraph that spans pages 3-4, scanning with variable frequency; claim 7 and top of page 3, triangular waveform of AC voltage); transmitting the signal through the sample to cause the pathogen in the sample to vibrate at a frequency (paragraph that spans pages 3-4, find resonance frequency of microorganisms by scanning the microorganisms with a variable frequency); detecting the vibrations from the sample (paragraph that spans pages 3-4, find resonance frequency of microorganisms); calculating a resonance profile of a pathogen in the sample based upon the vibrations (paragraph that spans pages 3-4, find resonance frequency of microorganisms); and determine if the sample includes the pathogen (paragraph that spans pages 3-4, determine the ingredients in relation to microorganisms within a sample).
Leeser does not specifically teach that the waveform is transmitted from a voltage-controlled oscillator. However, Pearce teaches, in column 4, lines 9-18, that a voltage-controlled oscillator is a type of oscillator for producing a signal at a desired frequency that is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a VCO, such as is taught in Pearce, in the system of Leeser, because VCOs are well known in the art (see Pearce, column 4, lines 9-12).
Leeser does not specifically teach providing a database that includes a resonance profile signature of at least one pathogens; and comparing the calculated resonance profile to the resonance profile signature database to determine if the sample includes the pathogen. However, Leeser does teach identifying microorganisms (e.g., pathogens) by determining their resonance frequency (top of page 4). Further, Hempel teaches, in paragraphs [0015], [0048], and [0055], providing a database that includes a resonance profile signature of at least one pathogens; and comparing the calculated resonance profile to the resonance profile signature database to determine if the sample includes the pathogen. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the database on Hempel in the system of Leeser, in order to make determined resonant frequency patterns available for subsequent detections (see Hempel, paragraph [0055]).
Regarding Claim 9, Leeser in view of Pearce and Hempel teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Leeser further teaches wherein the sample is at least partially a liquid (page 5, first paragraph in the Example section, water).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser in view of Pearce and Hempel, in further view of Reichau (EP-0770867-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Leeser in view of Pearce and Hempel teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Leeser does not specifically teach wherein the calculated resonance profiles are modeled, extrapolated and captured using artificial intelligence. However, Reichau teaches, in the last paragraph before the Claims section on page 7, that various significant features of excitation spectra, including resonance peaks, may be extracted using known algorithms of fuzzy logic and/or neural networks (equated to the claim modeling, extrapolating, and capturing using artificial intelligence). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the fuzzy logic and/or neural networks (i.e., artificial intelligence) of Reichau in the system of Leeser, because such algorithms are known (see Reichau, the last paragraph before the Claims section on page 7).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser in view of Pearce and Hempel, in further view of Brace (U.S. Pat. No. 5614718).
Regarding Claim 3, Leeser in view of Pearce and Hempel teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Leeser does not specifically teach wherein the resonance profile is calculated using a multivariate regression analysis equation. However, Leeser does teach resonance profiles (paragraph that spans pages 3-4, find resonance frequency of microorganisms by scanning across many frequencies). Further, Brace teaches, in column 11, lines 37-48, that multivariate regression is known to those skilled in the art for producing prediction models for spectral processing. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the multivariate regression of Brace in the system of Leeser, because multivariate regression is known to those skilled in the art (see Brace, column 11, lines 37-48).
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser in view of Pearce and Hempel, in further view of Brooks et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0039389, hereinafter “Brooks”).
Regarding Claim 5, Leeser in view of Pearce and Hempel teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Leeser does not specifically teach further comprising calculating a concentration of the pathogen in the sample. However, Brooks teaches calculating a concentration of the pathogen in the sample based on resonant signature and detected amplitudes in paragraph [0183]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the concentration determination of Brooks in the system of Leeser, in order to assess viral load (see Brooks, paragraph [0183]).
Regarding Claim 8, Leeser in view of Pearce and Hempel teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Leeser does not specifically teach a concentration of the pathogen in the sample. However, Brooks teaches calculating a concentration of the pathogen in the sample based on resonant signature and amplitudes in paragraph [0183]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the concentration determination of Brooks in the system of Leeser, in order to assess viral load (see Brooks, paragraph [0183]). Leeser in view of Brooks does not specifically teach wherein a concentration of the pathogen in the sample is greater than about 300 virion per milliliter. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for a concentration of a sample in the system of Leeser and Brooks to be greater than about 300 virion per milliliter, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser in view of Pearce and Hempel, in further view of Collinson et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0360116, hereinafter “Collinson”).
Regarding Claim 6, Leeser in view of Pearce and Hempel teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Leeser does not specifically teach wherein the triangle wave form output is produced using a field programmable gate array. However, Collinson teaches, in paragraph [0058], that an FPGA can control a waveform synthesizer to output a waveform signal having any desired shape, including triangular. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the FPGA taught in Collinson in the system of Leeser, because an FPGA can be used to generate a signal having any desired characteristics (see Collinson, paragraph [0058]).
Leeser does not specifically teach wherein the method further comprises amplifying the signal. However, Pearce teaches wherein the method further comprises amplifying the signal (column 4, lines 15-18, VCO provides output to amplifier). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the amplifier of Pearce in the system of Leeser and Pearce, because it is typical for VCOs, which are well known in the art, to provide their output to an amplifier (see Pearce, column 4, lines 9-18).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser in view of Pearce and Hempel, in further view of Zhao (CN-105842293-A).
Regarding Claim 7, Leeser in view of Pearce and Hempel teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Leeser does not specifically teach wherein the signal is transmitted using a 50-ohm microstrip line. However, Zhao teaches transmitting a signal using a 50-ohm microstrip line on page 3, in the third full paragraph. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the microstrip line taught in Zhao in the system of Leeser, because combining prior art elements according to known methods (i.e., using a 50-ohn microstrip line to transmit a signal) yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser in view of Hempel, Collinson and Zhao.
Regarding Claim 10, Leeser teaches a pathogen detection method comprising: collecting a sample that potentially contains a pathogen (top of page 4, determine microorganisms within a sample; page 4, fifth full paragraph, microorganisms include bacteria and viruses); producing a triangle wave form output (claim 7 and top of page 3, triangular waveform of AC voltage); transmitting a signal associated with the triangle wave form over a plurality of frequencies (paragraph that spans pages 3-4, scanning with variable frequency; claim 7 and top of page 3, triangular waveform of AC voltage); transmitting the signal through the sample to cause the pathogen in the sample to vibrate at a frequency (paragraph that spans pages 3-4, find resonance frequency of microorganisms by scanning the microorganisms with a variable frequency); detecting the vibrations from the sample (paragraph that spans pages 3-4, find resonance frequency of microorganisms); calculating a resonance profile of a pathogen in the sample based upon the vibrations (paragraph that spans pages 3-4, find resonance frequency of microorganisms); and determine if the sample includes the pathogen (paragraph that spans pages 3-4, determine the ingredients in relation to microorganisms within a sample).
Leeser does not specifically teach producing the triangle wave form output using a field programmable gate array. However, Collinson teaches, in paragraph [0058], that an FPGA can control a waveform synthesizer to output a waveform signal having any desired shape, including triangular. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the FPGA taught in Collinson in the system of Leeser, because an FPGA can be used to generate a signal having any desired characteristics (see Collinson, paragraph [0058]).
Leeser does not specifically teach that the signal is transmitted using a 50-ohm microstrip line. However, Zhao teaches transmitting a signal using a 50-ohm microstrip line on page 3, in the third full paragraph. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the microstrip line taught in Zhao in the system of Leeser, because combining prior art elements according to known methods (i.e., using a 50-ohm microstrip line to transmit a signal) yields predictable results.
Leeser does not specifically teach providing a database that includes a resonance profile signature of at least one pathogens; and comparing the calculated resonance profile to the resonance profile signature database to determine if the sample includes the pathogen. However, Leeser does teach identifying microorganisms (e.g., pathogens) by determining their resonance frequency (top of page 4). Further, Hempel teaches, in paragraphs [0015], [0048], and [0055], providing a database that includes a resonance profile signature of at least one pathogens; and comparing the calculated resonance profile to the resonance profile signature database to determine if the sample includes the pathogen. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the database on Hempel in the system of Leeser, in order to make determined resonant frequency patterns available for subsequent detections (see Hempel, paragraph [0055]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser in view of Hempel, Collinson and Zhao, in further view of Reichau.
Regarding Claim 11, Leeser in view of Hempel, Collinson and Zhao teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 10. Leeser does not specifically teach wherein the calculated resonance profiles are modeled, extrapolated and captured using artificial intelligence. However, Reichau teaches, in the last paragraph before the Claims section on page 7, that various significant features of excitation spectra, including resonance peaks, may be extracted using known algorithms of fuzzy logic and/or neural networks (equated to the claim modeling, extrapolating, and capturing using artificial intelligence). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the fuzzy logic and/or neural networks (i.e., artificial intelligence) of Reichau in the system of Leeser, because such algorithms are known (see Reichau, the last paragraph before the Claims section on page 7).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser in view of Hempel, Collinson and Zhao, in further view of Brace (U.S. Pat. No. 5614718).
Regarding Claim 12, Leeser in view of Hempel, Collinson and Zhao teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 10. Leeser does not specifically teach wherein the resonance profile is calculated using a multivariate regression analysis equation. However, Leeser does teach resonance profiles (paragraph that spans pages 3-4, find resonance frequency of microorganisms by scanning across many frequencies). Further, Brace teaches, in column 11, lines 37-48, that multivariate regression is known to those skilled in the art for producing prediction models for spectral processing. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the multivariate regression of Brace in the system of Leeser, because multivariate regression is known to those skilled in the art (see Brace, column 11, lines 37-48).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser in view of Hempel, Collinson and Zhao, in further view of Brooks.
Regarding Claim 14, Leeser in view of Hempel, Collinson and Zhao teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 10. Leeser does not specifically teach further comprising calculating a concentration of the pathogen in the sample. However, Brooks teaches calculating a concentration of the pathogen in the sample based on resonant signature and detected amplitudes in paragraph [0183]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the concentration determination of Brooks in the system of Leeser, in order to assess viral load (see Brooks, paragraph [0183]).
Regarding Claim 15, Leeser in view of Hempel, Collinson and Zhao teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 10. Leeser does not specifically teach amplifying the signal. However, Collinson teaches in paragraphs [0057], [0060], and [0064] that an FPGA includes amplifiers, and is used in conjunction with a power supply that includes amplifiers to generate a signal. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include amplifiers in conjunction with an FPGA, as are taught in Collinson, in the system of Leeser, because an FPGA can be used to generate a signal having any desired characteristics (see Collinson, paragraph [0058]).
Leeser does not specifically teach a concentration of the pathogen in the sample. However, Brooks teaches calculating a concentration of the pathogen in the sample based on resonant signature and detected amplitudes in paragraph [0183]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the concentration determination of Brooks in the system of Leeser, in order to assess viral load (see Brooks, paragraph [0183]). Leeser in view of Brooks does not specifically teach wherein a concentration of the pathogen in the sample is greater than about 300 virion per milliliter. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for a concentration of a sample in the system of Leeser and Brooks to be greater than about 300 virion per milliliter, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, pending addressing of the claim objections and the 112(b) rejections.
Claims 16-20 are allowable pending addressing of the claim objections and the 112(b) rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571)272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857