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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on April 28, 2026 was considered by the examiner. Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are pending in the application.
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 4, 12-14, and 17-18 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.
Claim 4 recites “a correction factor” in line 4, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a correction factor” in claim 1, line 7. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the correction factor”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination the recitations are interpreted to be the same.
Claim 12 recites “a decaying detection signal” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitations “a detection signal” in claim 11, line 3. The similar phraseology and context of the claim suggest that they are the same, but “decaying” and the indefinite article “a” suggest that they are different. If the recitations are the same, then the present recitation should be “the detection signal”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same.
Claims 13-14 and 17-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 12.
Claim 17 recites “evaluating a plurality of voltage values from the sensor device when the exponentially decaying stimuli is dormant; and adjusting the computed timing constant for a correction factor based on the evaluated plurality of voltage values” in lines 3-6; however, claim 11, lines 12-15 recites to “evaluate a plurality of voltage values from the sensor device when the exponentially decaying stimuli is dormant; and adjust the computed timing constant for a correction factor based on the evaluated plurality of voltage values”. The repeated recitation that includes duplicate elements adds confusion as to what is required in the claim, and relationship between the duplicate elements. These inconsistencies render claim 17 indefinite. It appears as if this recitation should be deleted.
Claim 18 recites “a correction factor” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitations “a correction factor” in claim 11, line 14. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, then the present recitation should be “the correction factor”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “evaluating a timing exhibited by the set of points” (see specification pg. 7 ln. 21 – pg. 9 ln. 11) is being interpreted as judgements/observations (i.e., the measuring of the time differences/durations); or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., mere data gathering at a high level of generality – see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation “computing a timing constant based on the evaluated timing” (see specification pg. 7 ln. 21 – pg. 9 ln. 11 and pg. 14 ln. 20-24) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitation “identifying a correction factor based on a response slope between the voltage values exhibited by the set of points; adjusting the computed timing constant for the correction factor based on a sensory delay between adjacent points in the set of points” (see specification pg. 4 ln. 13-26) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or observations/judgements. The recitation “determining a presence and concentration of a substance” (see specification pg. 11 ln. 22 – pg. 12 ln. 3 and pg. 15 ln. 11-16) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements/observations (i.e., table lookup, etc.). The recitations are computer-implemented, as indicated in the specification (see specification pg. 15 ln. 17-27).
Claim 11 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “compute a timing constant defining a rate of decay of the exponentially decaying stimuli” (see specification pg. 7 ln. 21 – pg. 9 ln. 11 and pg. 14 ln. 20-24) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitation “mapping the timing constant to a concentration level of a measured substance, the exponentially decaying stimuli indicative of the measured substance” (see specification pg. 11 ln. 22 – pg. 12 ln. 3 and pg. 15 ln. 11-16) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements/observations (i.e., table lookup, etc.). The recitation “evaluate a plurality of voltage values from the sensor device when the exponentially decaying stimuli is dormant; and adjust the computed timing constant for a correction factor based on the evaluated plurality of voltage values” (see specification pg. 4 ln. 13-26 and pg. 13 ln. 1-3) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or observations/judgements. The recitations are computer-implemented, as indicated in the specification (see specification pg. 15 ln. 17-27).
Step 1: This part of eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Claim 1 recites a method, which is directed towards a process (a statutory category of invention). Claim 11 recites a device, which is directed towards a machine/manufacture (a statutory category of invention). Step 1: YES.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, multiple evaluations and/or judgements/observations. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claims 1 and 11 recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas that fall within the mental process grouping). No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
Furthermore, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The courts consider mathematical calculations, when the claim is given its BRI in light of the specification, as falling within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. A claim does not have to recite “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using a mathematical method, or “performing” a mathematical operation, may also be considered a mathematical calculation when the BRI of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, multiple mathematical calculations/evaluations. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claims 1 and 11 recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas that fall within the mathematical calculations grouping of mathematical concepts).
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formulas (i.e., calculations to determine a likelihood score) to derive a conclusion based on input of data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts (Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). The concept of the recited limitations identified as mathematical concepts above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
In particular, claim 1 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
a method of measuring a time constant in a measurement circuit for voltage pulses, comprising:
receiving a set of points based on a plurality of voltage values from a sensor device in communication with a sensory medium;
evaluating a timing exhibited by the set of points;
computing a timing constant based on the evaluated timing;
identifying a correction factor based on a response slope between the voltage values exhibited by the set of points;
adjusting the computed timing constant for the correction factor based on a sensory delay between adjacent points in the set of points; and
based on the timing constant, determining and sending a presence and concentration of a substance sensed by the sensor device.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
evaluating an exponential decay, comprising:
send a detection signal indicative of an exponentially decaying stimuli;
generate a triggering signal for triggering the exponentially decaying stimuli;
compute a timing constant defining a rate of decay of the exponentially decaying stimuli; and
mapping the timing constant to a concentration level of a measured substance, the exponentially decaying stimuli indicative of the measured substance,
evaluate a plurality of voltage values from the sensor device when the exponentially decaying stimuli is dormant; and
adjust the computed timing constant for a correction factor based on the evaluated plurality of voltage values.
Step 2A Prong One: YES.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exceptions into a practical application. Claim 1 recites “sending a presence or concentration of a substance sensed by the sensor device”; however, such an element is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, merely data output, claimed generically and thus well known, without putting meaningful limit on the claim – see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 1 recites no other elements, such that claim 1 recites no element that integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application (note that the measurement circuit, sensor device, and the sensory medium are not positively recited in the claim). Claim 11 recites a circuit device, a sensor device, a stimulation circuit, a nonuniform sampling circuit, and a results estimator, which are being interpreted as a generic computer (see specification pg. 15 ln. 17-27). Note that claim 11 does not recite any elements/functions necessitating the structure to include a photodetector or light source, under the BRI. Therefore, the method/device are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with Step 2A Prong Two, claim 11 recites elements directed towards a generic computer (i.e., a circuit device, a sensor device, a stimulation circuit, a nonuniform sampling circuit, and a results estimator, which are being interpreted as a generic computer; see specification pg. 15 ln. 17-27). The method/device utilizing a generic computer do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no
indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for
example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is
no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based
problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective
functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e.,
the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Step 2B: NO.
Claims 1 and 11 are not eligible.
Claims 2-4 and 6-9 depend from claim 1, and merely further define the abstract ideas of claim 1. The claims recite no additional element that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Note that claims 6-9 recite elements (i.e., a photodetector, a luminescent film, a set of interconnected comparators, and a single comparator) that further limit the nature of data collected; however, are not positively recited in the claims themselves. The method is merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite no additional element that adds an inventive concept to the claim and/or amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The method utilizing a generic computer does not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome.
Claims 12-18 depend from claim 11, and merely further define the abstract ideas of claim 1. The claims recite no additional element that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 12 recites a level crossing circuit and claim 13 recites a level shifting circuit, which are being interpreted as the generic computer (see specification pg. 15 ln. 17-27). The device is merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite no additional element that adds an inventive concept to the claim and/or amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The device utilizing a generic computer does not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Claim 14 recites the additional element of a resistor string. The resistor string does not qualify as integration into a practical application because this limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a high level of generality – see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g) using a generic component (i.e., the resistors are claimed generically). The resistor string does not qualify as significantly more because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, Britton, Jr. et al. (US Patent 5,949,539) teaches a method for determining the decay-time constant of a fluorescing phosphor (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which the zero-crossing discrimination circuit 160 utilizes a commercial chip, such as an LM311 chip, with known components including resistors and capacitors (see col. 6 ln. 60 – col. 7 ln. 32; Figs. 7A-7B). Therefore, the resistor string cannot be seen as integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The succeeding art rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0005047 – cited in prior action), hereinafter Mayer, and in view of Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0039702), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding Claim 1, Mayer teaches a method for calibrating a luminescence lifetime sensing instrument (see abstract and Fig. 2). Mayer teaches a method of measuring a time constant in a measurement circuit for voltage pulses (see abstract and Figs. 2 and 4), comprising:
receiving a set of points based on a plurality of voltage values from a sensor device in communication with a sensory medium (¶[0088]-[0093] the signal from the photodiode 36 that is put into the circuit, the primary signal curve is put into the comparator 47 along with an inverted signal curve, the curves represent sets of points, and as they are an analog signal, are based on voltage from the photodetector, ¶[0097]-[0098] the probe is sensitive to a target analyte, such as partial pressure of oxygen in an enclosed space, which falls under the BRI of a sensing medium; Figs. 2 and 4);
evaluating a timing exhibited by the set of points (¶[0088]-[0093] the time that the LED is shut off is used as the starting time tstart for the decay constant/lifetime determination, with the timing of the crossing of the primary signal curve and the inverted signal curve as the ending time tend; Figs. 2 and 4);
computing a timing constant based on the evaluated timing (¶[0088]-[0093] the decay constant/lifetime is determined from tstart and tend; Figs. 2 and 4);
identifying a correction factor based on a response slope between the voltage values exhibited by the set of points; adjusting the computed timing constant for the correction factor based on a sensory delay between adjacent points in the set of points (¶[0094]-[0095] there is a delay from the rising of the signal based on the excitation (i.e., LED on) and a delay in the decay when excitation removed (i.e., LED off), of which, the decay constant/lifetime is adjusted/corrected based on those values, the slope is non-reactive during the delay; Figs. 5-6); and
based on the timing constant, determining a presence and concentration of a substance sensed by the sensor device (¶[0025]-[0029] and ¶[0097]-[0098] the probe that utilizes the measured decay constant/lifetime to determine the analyte partial pressure, such as oxygen, ¶[0021]-[0023] and ¶[0102] which is then be used to get the concentration of the target analyte, the partial pressure and/or concentration indicate the presence of the analyte; Fig. 3).
Mayer teaches a usb port (see ¶[0093]), does not specifically teach to send the presence and concentration of the substance.
Wu teaches about measuring glucose concentration values during continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) (see abstract and Fig. 10), in which the glucose concentration determined by the CGM may be displayed to the user via the display 1117 (see ¶[0094] and ¶[0111]-[0112]; Figs. 10-11A). Note that display the concentration out to the user would fall under the BRI of sending; and such a concentration would be indicative of presence of the analyte.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the displaying of the concentration of Wu with the method of Mayer because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results (i.e., the concentration is displayed to the user); and/or (2) displaying the analyte concentration to the user would enable the user and/or a medical professional provide appropriate care for the user, and enable the user to make informed decisions.
Regarding Claim 2, Mayer in view of Wu teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Mayer further teaches determining a gaseous concentration based on a voltage value of the plurality of voltage values resulting from an external stimuli detected by the sensor device (¶[0025]-[0029] and ¶[0097]-[0098] the probe that utilizes the measured decay constant/lifetime to determine the analyte partial pressure, such as oxygen, ¶[0088]-[0093] the LED 31 that illuminates the probe 120 to be received by the photodiode 36; Figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 3, Mayer in view of Wu teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Mayer further teaches the set of points includes at least 3 points on an exponential decay driven by an external stimuli (¶[0088]-[0093] the LED 31 that illuminates the probe 120 to be received by the photodiode 36; Fig. 2, see also Fig. 4, there are more than 3 points on the curves).
Regarding Claim 6, Mayer in view of Wu teaches the method of claim 2 as stated above. Mayer further teaches the sensor device is a photodetector and the external stimuli is emitted light (¶[0088]-[0093] the LED 31 that illuminates the probe 120 to be received by the photodiode 36; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Mayer in view of Wu teaches the method of claim 6 as stated above. Mayer further teaches the external stimuli is based on a luminescent film in a gaseous environment, and the computed timing constant is indicative of a sensed gas (¶[0025]-[0029] and ¶[0097]-[0098] the probe that utilizes the measured decay constant/lifetime to determine the analyte partial pressure, such as oxygen, such probes commonly include a thin film of a solid state photoluminescent composition; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Mayer teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Mayer further teaches receiving the plurality of voltage values from a single comparator adapted to sense a current level based on three sensed voltage levels (¶[0088]-[0093] the decay constant/lifetime is determined from tstart and tend, the comparator 47 for ascertaining the time of crossing point, which would evaluate more than three voltage signals as the two curves are input into the comparator; Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Mayer teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Mayer further teaches the received set of points each define a respective current value based on a constant voltage difference between the set of points (¶[0088]-[0093] the decay constant/lifetime is determined from tstart and tend, the comparator 47 for ascertaining the time of crossing point, which would evaluate more than three voltage signals as the two curves are input into the comparator, when the voltage difference is zero, the crossing would be determined; Figs. 2 and 4).
Claims 11-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Sato et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0116370 – cited in prior action), hereinafter Sato.
Regarding Claim 11, Mayer teaches a method for calibrating a luminescence lifetime sensing instrument (see abstract and Fig. 2). Mayer teaches a circuit device for evaluating an exponential decay (see abstract and Figs. 2 and 4), comprising:
a sensor device configured to send a detection signal indicative of an exponentially decaying stimuli (¶[0088]-[0093] the signal from the photodiode 36 that is put into the circuit, the primary signal curve is put into the comparator 47 along with an inverted signal curve, the curves represent sets of points, and as they are an analog signal, are based on voltage from the photodetector; Figs. 2 and 4);
a stimulation circuit configured to generate a triggering signal for triggering the exponentially decaying stimuli (¶[0088]-[0093] the LED 31 that illuminates the probe 120 to be received by the photodiode 36, the LED 31 controlled via the microprocessor 50; Fig. 2);
a nonuniform sampling circuit configured to compute a timing constant defining a rate of decay of the exponentially decaying stimuli (¶[0088]-[0093] the time that the LED is shut off is used as the starting time tstart for the decay constant/lifetime determination, with the timing of the crossing of the primary signal curve and the inverted signal curve as the ending time tend, the decay constant/lifetime is determined from tstart and tend; Figs. 2 and 4); and
a results estimator for mapping the timing constant to a concentration level of a measured substance, the exponentially decaying stimuli indicative of the measured substance (¶[0025]-[0029] and ¶[0097]-[0098] the probe that utilizes the measured decay constant/lifetime to determine the analyte partial pressure, such as oxygen; Fig. 3),
applying a correction to the decay constant/lifetime (see ¶[0094]-[0095] and Figs. 5-6).
Mayer does not specifically teach that the correction involves the results estimator further evaluating a plurality of voltage values from the sensor device when the exponentially decaying stimuli is dormant; and adjust the computed timing constant for a correction factor based on the evaluated plurality of voltage values.
Sato teaches about size reduction of an optical sensor that detects radiated light, such as phosphoresce radiated from a detection target excited by exciting light (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which phosphorescence is detected/determined via a decay constant (see generally ¶[0090]-[0097]), in which movement may be corrected for based on a correction coefficient determined with values when the target has moved when the light source is turned off, so as to more accurately determine the decay constant (see ¶[0104]-[0111] and Fig. 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the correction of Sato with the measurement probe of Mayer because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the correction would improve the accuracy of the decay constant/lifetime determination (see Sato ¶[0108]-[0111]).
Regarding Claim 12, Mayer in view of Sato teaches the device of claim 11 as stated above. Mayer further teaches the nonuniform sampling circuit includes a level crossing circuit for computing a time based on a duration at which a decaying detection signal attains a predetermined voltage demarcated by an equal voltage threshold (¶[0088]-[0093] the time that the LED is shut off is used as the starting time tstart for the decay constant/lifetime determination, with the timing of the crossing (the crossing is the equal value threshold, when both curves have the same voltage) of the primary signal curve and the inverted signal curve as the ending time tend, the decay constant/lifetime (i.e., the duration) is determined from tstart and tend; Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 13, Mayer in view of Sato teaches the device of claim 12 as stated above. Mayer further teaches a level shifting circuit for isolating the duration of the voltage threshold crossings based on received voltage values corresponding to the decaying detection signal (¶[0088]-[0093] the time that the LED is shut off is used as the starting time tstart for the decay constant/lifetime determination, with the timing of the crossing (the crossing is the equal value threshold, when both curves have the same voltage) of the primary signal curve and the inverted signal curve as the ending time tend, the decay constant/lifetime (i.e., the duration) is determined from tstart and tend, the time decay is determined for the one crossing, as written, the claim does not require multiple crossings; Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Mayer in view of Sato teaches the device of claim 11 as stated above. Mayer further teaches the stimulation circuit is operable to generate the triggering signal at predetermined timing intervals, and the timing constant is based on the predetermined timing intervals (¶[0094]-[0095] there is a delay from the rising of the signal based on the excitation (i.e., LED on) and a delay in the decay when excitation removed (i.e., LED off), of which, the decay constant/lifetime is adjusted/corrected based on those values, the timing intervals are the adjusted pulse made from the correction, used in the determination of the decay constant/lifetime; Figs. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 16, Mayer in view of Sato teaches the device of claim 15 as stated above. Mayer further teaches the triggering signal is an optical signal of a predetermined wavelength (¶[0081]-[0084] the LED 31 emits light at a specific wavelength, such as 390 nm for oxygen; Figs. 1-2) and the decaying stimuli is a luminescent decay based on an emitted wavelength quenched by a presence of the measured substance (¶[0025]-[0029] and ¶[0097]-[0098] the probe that utilizes the measured decay constant/lifetime to determine the analyte partial pressure, such as oxygen, ¶[0021]-[0023] the probe is quenched by the analyte; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Mayer in view of Sato teaches the device of claim 13 as stated above. The modified Mayer further teaches the level shifting circuit is further configured for correcting a DC leakage current by evaluating a plurality of voltage values from the sensor device when the exponentially decaying stimuli is dormant; and adjust the computed timing constant for a correction factor based on the evaluated plurality of voltage values (see Sato ¶[0104]-[0111], movement may be corrected for based on a correction coefficient determined with values when the target has moved when the light source is turned off, so as to more accurately determine the decay constant; Fig. 8). Here, the modified Mayer teaches the recitation of the claim to “correcting a DC leakage current”, as the claimed function to correct the leakage is taught by the modified Mayer.
Regarding Claim 18, Mayer in view of Sato teaches the device of claim 13 as stated above. Mayer further teaches identifying a correction factor based on a response slope of voltage values between the received voltage values; and adjusting the computed timing constant for the correction factor based on a sensory delay between the received voltage values (¶[0094]-[0095] there is a delay from the rising of the signal based on the excitation (i.e., LED on) and a delay in the decay when excitation removed (i.e., LED off), of which, the decay constant/lifetime is adjusted/corrected based on those values, the slope is non-reactive during the delay; Figs. 5-6).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Wu as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of Sato.
Regarding Claim 4, Mayer in view of Wu teaches the method of claim 2 as stated above. Mayer teaches applying a correction to the decay constant/lifetime (see ¶[0094]-[0095] and Figs. 5-6), but not specifically that the correction involves evaluating the plurality of voltage values from the sensor device when the external stimuli is dormant.
Sato teaches about size reduction of an optical sensor that detects radiated light, such as phosphoresce radiated from a detection target excited by exciting light (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which phosphorescence is detected/determined via a decay constant (see generally ¶[0090]-[0097]), in which movement may be corrected for based on a correction coefficient determined with values when the target has moved when the light source is turned off, so as to more accurately determine the decay constant (see ¶[0104]-[0111] and Fig. 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the correction of Sato with the measurement probe of the modified Mayer because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the correction would improve the accuracy of the decay constant/lifetime determination (see Sato ¶[0108]-[0111]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Deas et al. (GB Patent Application GB 2479183 A – cited in prior action), hereinafter Deas.
Regarding Claim 8, Mayer in view of Wu teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Mayer teaches the usage of a comparator (¶[0088]-[0093] the comparator 47 for ascertaining the time of crossing point; Figs. 2 and 4). The modified Mayer does not specifically teach receiving the plurality of voltage values from a set of interconnected comparators.
Deas teaches a technique and methods for a low oxygen alarm for a rebreather utilizing a sol-gel derived film oxygen sensor via lifetime measurement (see abstract and Figs. 1-2 and 14-15). Deas teaches a method of measuring a time constant in a measurement circuit for voltage pulses (see abstract and Figs. 1-2 and 14-15), receiving a set of points based on a voltage value from a sensor device (pg. 12 ln. 11 – pg. 13 ln. 25, the voltage output from the photodiode 306, after collecting light from film 304 illuminated via LED 302, there are a plurality of points; Figs. 2-4);
evaluating a timing exhibited by the set of points (pg. 13 ln. 22 – pg. 14 ln. 11, the timing between the raising/falling edge events of the signals 381/391 output from comparators 380/390 corresponding to the lifetime or decay constant for oxygen; Figs. 2-4);
computing a timing constant based on the evaluated timing by receiving the voltage values from a set of interconnected comparators (pg. 13 ln. 22 – pg. 14 ln. 11, the timing between the raising/falling edge events of the signals 381/391 that correspond to specific voltage/intensity levels, output from comparators 380/390, which corresponds to the lifetime or decay constant for oxygen; Figs. 2-4); and
based on the timing constant, determining a presence and magnitude of a substance sensed by the sensor device (pg. 9 ln. 26 – pg. 10 ln. 14, the life/decay constant is used to indicate oxygen concentration, further used to set an alarm when the oxygen concentration falls below a certain level, pg. 26 ln. 20 – pg. 27 ln. 16, a look-up table may be employed once the sensor is calibrated with known concentrations/lifetimes so as to ensure accurate concentration measurements; Figs. 14-15).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the interconnected comparators and thresholding of Deas with the measurement and comparator of the modified Mayer because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the modified Mayer requires a comparator for identifying the time constant/decay and Deas teaches a multi comparator modality for performing such function).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Sato as applied to claim 12 above, and in view of Britton, Jr. et al. (US Patent 5,949,539 – cited in prior action), hereinafter Britton, Jr.
Regarding Claim 14, Mayer in view of Sato teaches the device of claim 12 as stated above. Mayer does not specifically teach what the comparator comprises, including a resistor string for delivering a timing signal based on the detection signal attaining the voltage threshold.
Britton, Jr. teaches a method for determining the decay-time constant of a fluorescing phosphor (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which the zero-crossing discrimination circuit 160 utilizes a commercial chip, such as an LM311 chip, with known components including resistors and capacitors (see col. 6 ln. 60 – col. 7 ln. 32; Figs. 7A-7B, the circuit includes resistors connected, which is a resistor string).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the comparator, including resistor strings, of Britton, Jr. as the comparator for the curve crossing determination in Mayer (i.e., the voltage adjusted to that of the modified Mayer rather than zero-crossing) because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) Mayer requires a comparator and Britton, Jr. teaches one such comparator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1, filed April 28, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made that were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed April 28, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1-2, filed April 28, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. Applicant has argued that claim 1 as amended has placed the “claim language places the circuit in a sensory environment encompassing the sensor device, a power source for providing the voltage values, and generates an output indicative of harmful or dangerous substance concentration, thereby establishing a practical application…the sensor interaction with a sensory medium such as a luminescent film”. The examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that as the set of points are merely received, the claim does not positively recite “a sensor device” or “a sensory medium”. Furthermore, the claim does not recite “a power source”, “an output indicative of harmful or dangerous substance concentration”. The claim merely receives the set of points, and then outputs (sending) a presence and concentration of a substance. Such elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activity, merely data input/output, claimed generically and thus well known, without putting meaningful limit on the claim – see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 1 recites no other elements, such that claim 1 recites no element that integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Claim 11 has been amended to positively recite the circuit elements performing the excitation and evaluation of the exponentially decaying signal”, so as to be a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 11 recites a circuit device, a sensor device, a stimulation circuit, a nonuniform sampling circuit, and a results estimator, which are being interpreted as a generic computer (see specification pg. 15 ln. 17-27). Note that claim 11 does not recite any elements/functions necessitating the structure to include a photodetector or light source, under the BRI. Therefore, the method/device are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, claim 11 recites no elements that integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, prior art
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 2-3, filed April 28, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made in view of Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0039702) for independent claim 1 set, and Sato et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0116370 – cited in prior action) for independent claim 11 set .
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Mayer have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Mayer does not recite a timing (or any) constant, but rather explains dismissing a less reliable signal portion, as described at [0091] and Fig. 4 by focusing on the truncated, inverted signal”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim merely requires to “comput[e] a timing constant based on the evaluated timing” so as to “based on the timing constant, determining and sending a presence and concentration of a substance sensed by the sensor device”. Mayer teaches to compute a timing constant based on the evaluated timing (¶[0088]-[0093] the decay constant/lifetime is determined from tstart and tend, see specifically ¶[0093], “The electrical signal processing system 40 allows construction of a portable low cost detection instrument 20 as it permits rapid and accurate measurement of decay luminescence lifetime τDecay”; Figs. 2 and 4).
Applicant further argues that the addition subject matter of claim 5 amended into claim 1 clarifies that the slope correction factor calculated from three values is not recited by Mayer. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As a note, claim 1 as amended does not require the three values as amended. Furthermore, Mayer teaches identifying a correction factor based on a response slope between the voltage values exhibited by the set of points; adjusting the computed timing constant for the correction factor based on a sensory delay between adjacent points in the set of points (¶[0094]-[0095] there is a delay from the rising of the signal based on the excitation (i.e., LED on) and a delay in the decay when excitation removed (i.e., LED off), of which, the decay constant/lifetime is adjusted/corrected based on those values, the slope is non-reactive during the delay; Figs. 5-6).
Applicant then argues, with regard to claims 4 and 17, with respect to amended claim 11, various features of the claims the Mayer does not teach, but does not address Sato. In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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, JENNIFER M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights