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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 of the claim recites “ contact pads of the IDS sensor” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for an IDS sensor in the instant claim or in parent claim 1.
However, it appears from Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 60 that Applicant intended the IDS sensor to instead refer to the IDC sensor referred to throughout the rest of the specification and accordingly the examiner is interpreting the “IDS sensor” in the instant claim to instead refer to the --IDC sensor--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Escobedo et al. “Compact readout system for chipless passive LC tags and its application for humidity monitoring” (hereafter Escobedo) in view of Molina-Lopez et al. “All additive inkjet printed humidity sensors on plastic substrate” (hereafter Molina).
As to claim 1: Escobedo discloses an automated and wireless heat treat life testing system (see MPEP 2111.02, Sec. II - because there are no specific limitations relating the “automated and wireless accelerated heat treat life testing system” in the preamble to the body of the claim, said system is considered to solely constitute purpose or intended use that does not limit the claim in any structural or functional manner) comprising:
a readout coil (see page 2, second column under heading “3. Detection principle of the readout circuit” and furthermore under heading “4. Readout circuit” which notes that the readout circuit comprises an oscillator coil); and
an LC sensor on the readout coil (see fig 2; the LC sensor is broadly depicted as encompassing the entire surface of the device such as depicted in fig. 5 and therefore is considered to be “on” the readout coil component),
wherein the LC sensor includes:
a sensing coil (see fig. 2 regarding the coil depicted in the component labeled “LC tag”);
an IDC sensor (see left hand side of fig. 5 regarding the depicted IDC which is disclosed on page 4, second column, under heading “5. LC humidity sensing tag” as an interdigitated capacitor).
Escobedo does not explicitly teach:
a humidity sensing layer on a sensing area of the IDC sensor.
However, Molina teaches a humidity sensing layer on a sensing area of an IDC sensor (see fig. 2 regarding the depicted humidity sensing layer on a sensing area of an IDC sensor as disclosed in page 3, second column, under heading “3.1.3. Sensing layer: preparation, tuning, and printing” wherein it is noted that a CAB humidity sensing layer is printed onto an interdigital capacitor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Escobedo’s system to include a humidity sensing layer on a sensing area of an IDC sensor because this layer allows for efficient humidity detection that can be readily printed onto substrate surfaces with inkjet methods while further improving the flexibility of the device by also allowing for the capability of detecting specific chemicals by functionalizing the sensing layer, such as suggested in Molina page 10, first column, under heading “5. Conclusions”. Accordingly, such a modification would improve the flexibility of Escobedo’s system by allowing for not only sensing of moisture and humidity but also allowing for detection and presence of specific gases.
As to claim 2: Escobedo as modified by Molina teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the humidity sensing layer (see Molina fig. 2 regarding the depicted humidity sensing layer disclosed in page 3, second column, under heading “3.1.3. Sensing layer: preparation, tuning, and printing”) includes a material that reacts with magnesium or moisture (see Molina page 3, second column, under heading “3.1.3. Sensing layer: preparation, tuning, and printing” which notes that the cellulose acetate butyrate utilized as the humidity sensing layer is well known as having sensitivity to humidity).
As to claim 9: Escobedo as modified by Molina teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the readout coil (see Escobedo page 2, second column under heading “3. Detection principle of the readout circuit” and furthermore under heading “4. Readout circuit” which notes that the readout circuit comprises an oscillator coil) has a curved spiral shape (see Escobedo fig. 1a regarding the helical coil form of the readout coil).
As to claim 10: Escobedo as modified by Molina teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sensing coil (see Escobedo fig. 2 regarding the coil depicted in the component labeled “LC tag”) has a straight spiral shape (see Escobedo fig. 2; the coil depicted in the component labeled “LC tag” has spiral shape that extends straight in the vertically depicted dimension of the figure).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Escobedo et al. “Compact readout system for chipless passive LC tags and its application for humidity monitoring” (hereafter Escobedo) in view of Molina-Lopez et al. “All additive inkjet printed humidity sensors on plastic substrate” (hereafter Molina) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haque et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0184528 A1 (hereafter Haque).
As to claim 3: Escobedo as modified by Molina teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a humidity sensing layer (see Molina fig. 2 regarding the depicted humidity sensing layer disclosed in page 3, second column, under heading “3.1.3. Sensing layer: preparation, tuning, and printing”), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the humidity sensing layer has a thickness of 100 nm.
However, Haque teaches that a humidity sensing layer may have a thickness of 100 nm (see ¶ 119 and 120 regarding the thickness of 5 nm - 250 nm utilized for sensing humidity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Escobedo as modified by Molina’s humidity sensing layer to have a thickness of 100 nm because such thickness is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of a humidity sensing layer that is printable in a repeatable manner with inkjet means while also allowing for the possibility that the thickness could also be tuned to allow for alternative sensing capabilities of the sensor which thus would increase the flexibility of Escobedo’s system, such as suggested in ¶ 119-120 of Haque.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 11-12 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:
As to claim 4: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a system comprising contact pads of the IDS sensor (see the claim objection of the instant claim above which interprets the claimed “IDS sensor” to be an “IDC sensor” consistent with Applicant’s as-filed specification) being connected to the sensing coil through respective bonding wires, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
In particular, the combination of Escobedo and Molina is considered to teach all of the features of claim 1 (see the above 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claim 1). Furthermore, James et al. US Pat 6,335,622 B1 (hereafter James) is considered to teach a sensing system (see fig. 3) with an interdigital capacitor (see fig. 3 and col. 5, lines 40-47) sensor with contact pads of the IDC being connected to a sensing coil through respective bonding wires (see col. 5, lines 54-67 and col. 6, lines 1-2), but there does not appear to be any motivation, teaching, suggestion, or other motivation in order to modify Escobedo and/or Molina in an obvious way which would arrive at Applicant’s invention as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 5: The claim depends directly from claim 4 which was objected to for the reasons noted above as containing allowable subject matter and accordingly is also indicated allowable at least by virtue of its dependency upon a claim which is itself 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.
As to claim 6: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a system comprising an LC sensor that further includes an encapsulation layer surrounding the sensing coil, the IDC sensor, and (emphasis added) the humidity sensing layer, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
In particular, while Escobedo and Molina are considered to teach the features of claim 1 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claim 1 above), there is no disclosure in Escobedo and/or Molina regarding a layer which surrounds each of the sensing coil, the IDC sensor, and the humidity layer, nor does there appear to be any teaching, suggestion, motivation, or other obvious modification of any of the other available prior art that teaches such an encapsulation layer which surrounds each of the claimed components. Instead, at best, the device of Escobedo is printed upon a polyimide substrate (see Escobedo fig. 5b and details in page 4, second column, under heading “5. LC humidity sensing tag”) which each of the components are disposed upon (emphasis added) but cannot be reasonably construed as surrounding (emphasis) each of said components, such as required in the instant claim.
As to claims 7 and 8: Each of said claims depends directly from claim 6 which was objected to for the reasons noted above as containing allowable subject matter and accordingly each is also indicated allowable at least by virtue of its dependency upon a claim which is itself 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.
As to claim 11: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a system wherein each of the readout coil and the LC sensor are provided in plural, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
In particular, while Escobedo as modified by Molina teaches each of the components of a readout coil and an LC sensor (see the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claim 1 previously above), there is no disclosure that each of the readout coil and the LC sensor (which itself comprises a sensing coil, an IDC sensor on the sensing coil, and a humidity sensing layer on a sensing area of the IDC sensor) are provided in plural and there does not appear any teaching, suggestion, motivation, or other obvious modification in Escobedo, Molina, nor any of the other cited prior art that would render obvious the features of the instant claim.
As to claim 12: The claim depends directly from claim 11 which was objected to for the reasons noted above as containing allowable subject matter and accordingly is also indicated allowable at least by virtue of its dependency upon a claim which is itself 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855