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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2012/0256645, hereinafter Nguyen.
Regarding claim 1, Nguyen teaches a capacitive sensor system (figure 1) comprising: a sensor array (item 110) including a plurality of sense capacitors (item 120) and a top plate (figure 1); a comparator (item 130) operatively connected to the top plate of the sensor array (figure 1); a switch matrix (item 114) operatively connected to each sense capacitor of the sensor array (figure 1); and a digital controller (item 150) operatively connected to the comparator and the switch matrix (figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Nguyen teaches further comprising a read-out circuit formed by the sensor array, the comparator, the digital controller, and the switch matrix (figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Nguyen teaches the digital controller includes a conversion logic engine that controls testing operations of the capacitive sensor system (paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Nguyen teaches a capacitive sensor system (figure 1) comprising: a sensor array (item 110) including a plurality of sense capacitors (item 120) and a top plate (figure 1); a comparator (item 130) operatively connected to the top plate of the sensor array (figure 1); a switch matrix (item 114) operatively connected to each sense capacitor of the sensor array (figure 1); a digital controller (item 150) operatively connected to the comparator and the switch matrix (figure 1); and a read-out circuit formed by the sensor array, the comparator, the digital controller, and the switch matrix (figure 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of WO 99/08105, hereinafter Goodman.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Nguyen teaches the sensor array includes at least two sections (a upper and lower half of item 120), a first array section including a first set of sense capacitors (the upper half of item 120) and a second array section including a second set of sense capacitors (the lower half of item 120).
Nguyen fails to teach the first array section has a first ink on the first set of sense capacitors and the second array section has a second ink on the second set of sense capacitors and the first ink includes a first chemical reagent formulated to detect a first analyte, and the second ink includes a second chemical reagent formulated to detect a second analyte that is different from the first analyte.
Goodman teaches a system for analyte detection which utilizes ink on the sensors and different monomer can be polymerized to prepare a library of different polymers to distinguish different analytes of concern (Goodman, page 27, lines 22-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized two different inks on the sense capacitors made up of different polymers because it would allow for distinguish different analytes of concern (Goodman, page 27, lines 22-35).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Nguyen teaches the sensor array includes at least three sections (a upper portion a middle portion and a lower portion of item 120), a first array section including a first set of sense capacitors (the upper portion of item 120), a second array section including a second set of sense capacitors (the middle portion of item 120) and a third array section including a third set of sense capacitors (the lower portion of item 120)
Nguyen fails to teach the first array section has a first ink on the first set of sense capacitors, the second array section has a second ink on the second set of sense capacitors, and the third array section has a third ink on the third set of sense capacitors and the first ink includes a first chemical reagent formulated to detect a first analyte, and the second ink includes a second chemical reagent formulated to detect a second analyte that is different from the first analyte, and the third ink includes a third chemical reagent formulated to detect a third analyte that is different from both the first analyte and the second analyte.
Goodman teaches a system for analyte detection which utilizes ink on the sensors and different monomer can be polymerized to prepare a library of different polymers to distinguish different analytes of concern (Goodman, page 27, lines 22-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized three different inks on the sense capacitors made up of different polymers because it would allow for distinguish different analytes of concern (Goodman, page 27, lines 22-35).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Nguyen teaches the sensor array includes at least two sections (an upper and lower half of item 120), a first array section including a first set of sense capacitors (the upper half of item 120) and a second array section including a second set of sense capacitors (the lower half of item 120).
Nguyen fails to teach the first array section has a first ink on the first set of sense capacitors and the second array section has a second ink on the second set of sense capacitors and the first ink includes a first chemical reagent formulated to detect a first analyte, and the second ink includes a second chemical reagent formulated to detect a second analyte that is different from the first analyte.
Goodman teaches a system for analyte detection which utilizes ink on the sensors and different monomer can be polymerized to prepare a library of different polymers to distinguish different analytes of concern (Goodman, page 27, lines 22-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized two different inks on the sense capacitors made up of different polymers because it would allow for distinguish different analytes of concern (Goodman, page 27, lines 22-35).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Nguyen teaches the sensor array includes at least three sections (a upper portion a middle portion and a lower portion of item 120), a first array section including a first set of sense capacitors (the upper portion of item 120), a second array section including a second set of sense capacitors (the middle portion of item 120) and a third array section including a third set of sense capacitors (the lower portion of item 120)
Nguyen fails to teach the first array section has a first ink on the first set of sense capacitors, the second array section has a second ink on the second set of sense capacitors, and the third array section has a third ink on the third set of sense capacitors and the first ink includes a first chemical reagent formulated to detect a first analyte, and the second ink includes a second chemical reagent formulated to detect a second analyte that is different from the first analyte, and the third ink includes a third chemical reagent formulated to detect a third analyte that is different from both the first analyte and the second analyte.
Goodman teaches a system for analyte detection which utilizes ink on the sensors and different monomer can be polymerized to prepare a library of different polymers to distinguish different analytes of concern (Goodman, page 27, lines 22-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized three different inks on the sense capacitors made up of different polymers because it would allow for distinguish different analytes of concern (Goodman, page 27, lines 22-35).
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of United States Application Publication No. 2013/0193003, hereinafter Reed.
Regarding claim 8, Nguyen teaches all limitations of claim 7; however, Nguyen fails to teach the digital controller further includes discovery phase logic engine that controls an initial discovery phase to determine at least locations of sense capacitors in a first array section having a first ink.
Reed teaches a sensing device which has a calibration step which determines the which sensor measurements are different than the rest in order to determine which sensor is what (Reed, paragraph [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a discovery phase to determine which sense capacitors have a first ink because it would allow for the device to determine what sense capacitor is what (Reed, paragraph [0148]).
Regarding claim 14, Nguyen teaches the digital controller includes a conversion logic engine that controls testing operations of the capacitive sensor system (paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
However, Nguyen fails to teach the digital controller further includes discovery phase logic engine that controls an initial discovery phase to determine at least locations of sense capacitors in a first array section having a first ink.
Reed teaches a sensing device which has a calibration step which determines the which sensor measurements are different than the rest in order to determine which sensor is what (Reed, paragraph [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a discovery phase to determine which sense capacitors have a first ink because it would allow for the device to determine what sense capacitor is what (Reed, paragraph [0148]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Nguyen which teaches a sensor array, a comparator, a switch matrix and a digital controller. However, the prior art does not disclose, teach or suggest the claimed combination of the digital controller configured to toggle the sense capacitors, including setting the top plate to float, and operating the switch matrix to switch the values of each sense capacitor of the first array section from the first value to the second value and each sense capacitor of the second array section from the second value to the first value; and run a conversion algorithm, including determining by the digital controller which ratios of the first array section and the second array section need to be set to make the capacitance equal to each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights