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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 27, 28, 35, 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27 ln. 2: “the first medium and the second medium” appears instead of “a first medium and a second medium”
Claim 27 ln. 5: “a lipid interface” appears instead of “the lipid interface”
Claim 27 lns. 6-7: the limitation “wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules” already appears in lns. 2-3
Claim 27 ln. 9: a “;” is missing from the end of this line.
Claim 28 ln. 1: “first mechanical pulses” appears instead of “first mechanical pulse”
Claim 35 ln. 2: “the first medium and the second medium” appears instead of “a first medium and a second medium”
Claim 35 ln. 5: “a lipid interface” appears instead of “the lipid interface”
Claim 35 ln. 9: a “;” is missing from the end of this line.
Claim 37 lns. 6-7: the limitation “wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules” already appears in lns. 2-3
Claim 37 ln. 2: “the first medium and the second medium” appears instead of “a first medium and a second medium”
Claim 37 ln. 4-5: “a lipid interface” appears instead of “the lipid interface”
Claim 37 lns. 6-7: the limitation “wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules” already appears in lns. 2-3
Claim 37 ln. 8: a “;” is missing from the end of this line.
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.
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 34 and 41 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.
Regarding claim 34 and claim 41, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 38-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 38 depends on itself and claims 39-46 depend on claim 38. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret claim 38 as dependent on claim 37. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 27-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11962355 in view of Zhu (2001, “A Multi-IDT Input Tunable Surface Acoustic Wave Filter”).
Regarding claim 27, 11962355 claim 1 teaches a signal processing device comprising:
a lipid interface arranged between the first medium and the second medium, wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules (claim 1);
a first input transducer comprising first electrodes arranged to apply a first input signal to a lipid interface, the lipid interface having a thickness and being arranged between a first medium and a second medium, wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules, wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the first input transducer, the first input signal generates a first mechanical pulse in the lipid interface (claim 1)
an output transducer arranged to receive an output signal by detecting a mechanical response in the lipid interface (claim 1);
wherein the lipid interface is arranged to propagate the first mechanical pulse to the output transducer from the first input transducer (claim 1), and
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach a second input transducer comprising second electrodes arranged to apply a second input signal to the lipid interface wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the second input transducer, the second input signal generates a second mechanical pulse in the lipid interface; to propagate the second mechanical pulse to the output transducer from the second input transducer; wherein the first mechanical pulse and the second mechanical pulse interact with each other in the lipid interface to produce a combined mechanical pulse which is detected by the output transducer.
Zhu teaches multiple transducer input configurations for surface acoustic waves with the resultant wave measured at the output transducer (“B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 11962355 claim 1 to include a second input transducer comprising second electrodes arranged to apply a second input signal to the lipid interface wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the second input transducer, the second input signal generates a second mechanical pulse in the lipid interface; to propagate the second mechanical pulse to the output transducer from the second input transducer; wherein the first mechanical pulse and the second mechanical pulse interact with each other in the lipid interface to produce a combined mechanical pulse which is detected by the output transducer similar to Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would improve tunability (Zhu: “B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
Regarding claim 28, 11962355 claim 18 (which is dependent on claim 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 27 wherein the first mechanical pulses and the second mechanical pulse interact with each other as they propagate via the lipid interface (claim 18).
Regarding claim 29, 11962355 claim 6 (which is dependent on claim 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 27 the first mechanical pulse and the second mechanical pulse interact non-linearly and the resulting amplitude is not equal to the linear sum of interacting sound waves (claim 6).
Regarding claim 30, 11962355 teaches the signal processing device of claim 27 wherein the first mechanical pulses and the second mechanical pulse interfere constructively, or interfere destructively (claim 18 which is dependent on claim 1, two waves interfering inherently interfere constructively, destructively, or both at different times).
Regarding claim 31, 11962355 claim 3 (which is dependent on claim 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 27 wherein the first medium comprises a liquid and the second medium comprises one of a liquid medium and a gaseous medium (claim 3).
Regarding claim 32, 11962355 claim 4 (which is dependent on claim 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 27 wherein the first medium and/or the second medium is viscoelastic (claim 4).
Regarding claim 33, 11962355 claim 5 (which is dependent on claim 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 27 wherein the lipid interface comprises a monolayer of lipid molecules (claim 5).
Regarding claim 34, 11962355 claim 6 (which is dependent on claim 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 27 wherein the lipid interface exhibits non-linear behaviour, for example wherein the lipid interface comprises a non-linear compressible piezo-electric film (claim 6).
Claims 35-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18 (which is dependent on claim 1) of U.S. Patent No. 11962355 in view of Steinbeck (1996, “Chemical Wave Logic Gates).
Regarding claim 35, 11962355 claim 18 (which is dependent on claim 1) teaches a device comprising:
a lipid interface arranged between the first medium and the second medium, wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules (claim 1);
a first input transducer comprising first electrodes arranged to apply a first input signal to a lipid interface, the lipid interface having a thickness and being arranged between a first medium and a second medium, wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules, wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the first input transducer, the first input signal generates a first mechanical pulse in the lipid interface (claim 1)
a second input transducer comprising second electrodes arranged to apply a second input signal to the lipid interface wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the second input transducer, the second input signal generates a second mechanical pulse in the lipid interface (claim 18);
an output transducer arranged to receive an output signal by detecting a mechanical response in the lipid interface (claim 1 and 18);
wherein the lipid interface is arranged to propagate the first mechanical pulse to the output transducer from the first input transducer and to propagate the second mechanical pulse to the output transducer from the second input transducer (claim 1 and 18), and
wherein the first mechanical pulse and the second mechanical pulse interact with each other in the lipid interface to produce a combined mechanical pulse which is detected by the output transducer (claim 1 and 18).
11962355 claim 18 does not explicitly teach the device is a logic processing device.
Steinbeck teaches logic gates using waves in excitable media (“Introduction” and “Experimental Results”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 11962355 claim 18 such that the device is a logic processing device similar to Steinbeck with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the excitable media to perform computational tasks (Steinbeck: “Discussion and Conclusions”).
Regarding claim 36, 11962355 claim 18 (which is dependent on claim 1) teaches the logic processing device of claim 35
11962355 claim 18 does not explicitly teach configured to act as one of. a logic gate, a linear classifier, and an artificial neuron.
Steinbeck teaches logic gates using waves in excitable media (“Introduction” and “Experimental Results”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 11962355 claim 18 such that it is configured to act as one of: a logic gate, a linear classifier, and an artificial neuron similar to Steinbeck with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the excitable media to perform computational tasks (Steinbeck: “Discussion and Conclusions”).
Claims 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11962355 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 37, 11962355 claim 16 (which is dependent on claims 16, 15, 14, and 1) teaches the signal processing device comprising:
a lipid interface arranged between the first medium and the second medium, wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules (claim 1);
an input transducer comprising electrodes arranged to apply an input signal to a lipid interface, the lipid interface having a thickness and being arranged between a first medium and a second medium, wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules, wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the input transducer, the input signal generates a mechanical pulse in the lipid interface an output transducer arranged to receive (claim 1)
an output signal by detecting a mechanical response in the lipid interface from the mechanical pulse generated in the lipid interface by the input transducer (claim 1); and,
wherein the lipid interface is arranged to propagate the mechanical pulse from the input transducer via the lipid interface to the output transducer; the signal processing device further comprising an amplifying transducer arranged to apply a bias voltage to the lipid interface between the input transducer and the output transducer to amplify the mechanical pulse (claims 14-16).
Claims 38-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11962355 in view of Griesbauer (2009, “Wave Propagation in Lipid Monolayers”)
Regarding claim 38, 11962355 claim 16 (which is dependent on claims 16, 15, 14, and 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 38
11962355 claim 16 does not explicitly teach but Griesbauer teaches wherein the first medium comprises a liquid and the second medium comprises one of a liquid medium and a gaseous medium (air/water interface, Fig. 2; “Results and Discussion: Theory” Section, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 11962355 claim 16 such that the first medium comprises a liquid and the second medium comprises one of a liquid medium and a gaseous medium similar to Griesbauer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping enable the signal processing on a lipid membrane.
Regarding claim 39, 11962355 claim 16 (which is dependent on claims 16, 15, 14, and 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 38
11962355 claim 16 does not explicitly teach but Griesbauer teaches wherein the first medium and/or the second medium is viscoelastic (water medium, Fig. 2; “Results and Discussion: Theory” Section, first paragraph; water and water/lipid interfaces have viscoelastic properties).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 11962355 claim 16 such that the first medium and/or the second medium is viscoelastic similar to Griesbauer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping enable the signal processing on a lipid membrane.
Regarding claim 40, 11962355 claim 16 (which is dependent on claims 16, 15, 14, and 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 38
11962355 claim 16 does not explicitly teach but Griesbauer teaches wherein the lipid interface comprises a monolayer of lipid molecules (lipid monolayer, Fig. 2; “Results and Discussion: Theory” Section, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 11962355 claim 16 such that the lipid interface comprises a monolayer of lipid molecules similar to Griesbauer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping enable the signal processing on a lipid membrane.
Regarding claim 41, 11962355 claim 16 (which is dependent on claims 16, 15, 14, and 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 38
11962355 claim 16 does not explicitly teach but Griesbauer teaches wherein the lipid interface exhibits non-linear behaviour (nonlinear pressure changes in Figs. 3 and 4), for example wherein the lipid interface comprises a non-linear compressible piezo-electric film (“Experiments” section, second paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 11962355 claim 16 such the lipid interface exhibits non-linear behaviour, for example wherein the lipid interface comprises a non-linear compressible piezo-electric film similar to Griesbauer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping enable the signal processing on a lipid membrane.
Regarding claim 42, 11962355 claim 16 (which is dependent on claims 16, 15, 14, and 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 38 wherein the amplifying transducer is configured to measure an output current owing to dielectric breakdown of the lipid interface when the propagating mechanical pulse is incident upon the amplifying transducer (claims 14-16).
Regarding claim 43, 11962355 claim 16 (which is dependent on claims 16, 15, 14, and 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 38 wherein the amplifying transducer comprises a relay (claims 14-16 describe the function of a relay).
Regarding claim 44, 11962355 claim 16 (which is dependent on claims 16, 15, 14, and 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 38 wherein a voltage input is connected to the amplifying transducer, wherein the voltage input is arranged to apply a bias voltage to the amplifying transducer (claims 14-16).
Claims 45-46 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11962355 in view of Griesbauer (2009, “Wave Propagation in Lipid Monolayers”) and further in view of Zhu (2001, “A Multi-IDT Input Tunable Surface Acoustic Wave Filter”).
Regarding claim 45, 11962355 claim 16 (which is dependent on claims 16, 15, 14, and 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 38
11962355 claim 16 does not explicitly teach comprising a plurality of input transducers and/or a plurality of output transducers and/or a plurality of amplifying transducers.
Zhu teaches multiple transducer input configurations for surface acoustic waves with the resultant wave measured at the output transducer (“B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 11962355 claim 16 to include a plurality of input transducers and/or a plurality of output transducers and/or a plurality of amplifying transducers similar to Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would improve tunability (Zhu: “B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
Regarding claim 46, 11962355 claim 16 (which is dependent on claims 16, 15, 14, and 1) teaches the signal processing device of claim 45
11962355 claim 16 does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of mechanical pulses are generated in the lipid interface by the plurality of input transducers and interact with each other as they propagate via the lipid interface.
Zhu teaches multiple transducer input configurations for surface acoustic waves with the resultant wave measured at the output transducer (“B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 11962355 claim 16 such that a plurality of mechanical pulses are generated in the lipid interface by the plurality of input transducers and interact with each other as they propagate via the lipid interface similar to Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would improve tunability (Zhu: “B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
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.
Claims 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griesbauer (2009, “Wave Propagation in Lipid Monolayers”) in view of Zhu (2001, “A Multi-IDT Input Tunable Surface Acoustic Wave Filter”).
Regarding claim 27, Griesbauer teaches a signal processing device (Fig. 2, Section “Experiments”) comprising:
a lipid interface arranged between the first medium and the second medium, wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules (lipid monolayer arranged between water and air, Fig. 2; “Results and Discussion: Theory” section, first paragraph);
a first input transducer comprising first electrodes arranged to apply a first input signal to a lipid interface, the lipid interface having a thickness and being arranged between a first medium and a second medium, wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules, wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the first input transducer, the first input signal generates a first mechanical pulse in the lipid interface (interdigital transducers, IDT, excite sound waves on lipid monolayer; Abstract, “Introduction” section, Fig. 2)
an output transducer arranged to receive an output signal by detecting a mechanical response in the lipid interface (Force on Wilhelmy plate is used to find change in lateral pressure; Figs. 2 and 3);
wherein the lipid interface is arranged to propagate the first mechanical pulse to the output transducer from the first input transducer (Fig. 2, “Experiments” section), and
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach a second input transducer comprising second electrodes arranged to apply a second input signal to the lipid interface wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the second input transducer, the second input signal generates a second mechanical pulse in the lipid interface; to propagate the second mechanical pulse to the output transducer from the second input transducer; wherein the first mechanical pulse and the second mechanical pulse interact with each other in the lipid interface to produce a combined mechanical pulse which is detected by the output transducer.
Zhu teaches multiple transducer input configurations for surface acoustic waves with the resultant wave measured at the output transducer (“B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer to include a second input transducer comprising second electrodes arranged to apply a second input signal to the lipid interface wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the second input transducer, the second input signal generates a second mechanical pulse in the lipid interface; to propagate the second mechanical pulse to the output transducer from the second input transducer; wherein the first mechanical pulse and the second mechanical pulse interact with each other in the lipid interface to produce a combined mechanical pulse which is detected by the output transducer similar to Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would improve tunability (Zhu: “B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
Regarding claim 28, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 27
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach wherein the first mechanical pulses and the second mechanical pulse interact with each other as they propagate via the lipid interface.
Zhu teaches multiple transducer input configurations for surface acoustic waves with the resultant wave measured at the output transducer (“B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer to include the first mechanical pulses and the second mechanical pulse interact with each other as they propagate via the lipid interface similar to Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would improve tunability (Zhu: “B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
Regarding claim 29, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 27
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach the first mechanical pulse and the second mechanical pulse interact non-linearly and the resulting amplitude is not equal to the linear sum of interacting sound waves.
Zhu teaches multiple transducer input configurations for surface acoustic waves with the resultant wave measured at the output transducer (“B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section; additionally Griesbauer “Experiments” section discusses nonlinearity in pressure changes (Figs. 3-4)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer to include the first mechanical pulses and the second mechanical pulse interact with each other as they propagate via the lipid interface similar to Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would improve tunability (Zhu: “B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
Regarding claim 30, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 27
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach wherein the first mechanical pulses and the second mechanical pulse interfere constructively, or interfere destructively.
Zhu teaches multiple transducer input configurations for surface acoustic waves with the resultant wave measured at the output transducer (“B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section; examiner notes that any two interacting waves will interfere either constructively, destructively, or both at different times).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer to include the first mechanical pulses and the second mechanical pulse interfere constructively, or interfere destructively similar to Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would improve tunability (Zhu: “B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
Regarding claim 31, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 27 wherein the first medium comprises a liquid and the second medium comprises one of a liquid medium and a gaseous medium (air/water interface, Fig. 2; “Results and Discussion: Theory” Section, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 32, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 27 wherein the first medium and/or the second medium is viscoelastic (water medium, Fig. 2; “Results and Discussion: Theory” Section, first paragraph; water and water/lipid interfaces have viscoelastic properties).
Regarding claim 33, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 27 wherein the lipid interface comprises a monolayer of lipid molecules (lipid monolayer, Fig. 2; “Results and Discussion: Theory” Section, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 34, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 27 wherein the lipid interface exhibits non-linear behaviour (nonlinear pressure changes in Figs. 3 and 4), for example wherein the lipid interface comprises a non-linear compressible piezo-electric film (“Experiments” section, second paragraph).
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griesbauer (2009, “Wave Propagation in Lipid Monolayers”) in view of Zhu (2001, “A Multi-IDT Input Tunable Surface Acoustic Wave Filter”) and Steinbeck (1996, “Chemical Wave Logic Gates).
Regarding claim 35, Griesbauer teaches a device comprising:
a lipid interface arranged between the first medium and the second medium, wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules (lipid monolayer arranged between water and air, Fig. 2; “Results and Discussion: Theory” section, first paragraph);
a first input transducer comprising first electrodes arranged to apply a first input signal to a lipid interface, the lipid interface having a thickness and being arranged between a first medium and a second medium, wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules, wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the first input transducer, the first input signal generates a first mechanical pulse in the lipid interface (interdigital transducers, IDT, excite sound waves on lipid monolayer; Abstract, “Introduction” section, Fig. 2)
an output transducer arranged to receive an output signal by detecting a mechanical response in the lipid interface (Force on Wilhelmy plate is used to find change in lateral pressure; Figs. 2 and 3);
wherein the lipid interface is arranged to propagate the first mechanical pulse to the output transducer from the first input transducer (Fig. 2, “Experiments” section), and
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach the device is a logic processing device, and a second input transducer comprising second electrodes arranged to apply a second input signal to the lipid interface wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the second input transducer, the second input signal generates a second mechanical pulse in the lipid interface; to propagate the second mechanical pulse to the output transducer from the second input transducer; wherein the first mechanical pulse and the second mechanical pulse interact with each other in the lipid interface to produce a combined mechanical pulse which is detected by the output transducer.
Zhu teaches multiple transducer input configurations for surface acoustic waves with the resultant wave measured at the output transducer (“B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer to include a second input transducer comprising second electrodes arranged to apply a second input signal to the lipid interface wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the second input transducer, the second input signal generates a second mechanical pulse in the lipid interface; to propagate the second mechanical pulse to the output transducer from the second input transducer; wherein the first mechanical pulse and the second mechanical pulse interact with each other in the lipid interface to produce a combined mechanical pulse which is detected by the output transducer similar to Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would improve tunability (Zhu: “B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
Additionally, Steinbeck teaches logic gates using waves in excitable media (“Introduction” and “Experimental Results”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer such that the device is a logic processing device similar to Steinbeck with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the excitable media to perform computational tasks (Steinbeck: “Discussion and Conclusions”).
Regarding claim 36, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the logic processing device of claim 35
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach configured to act as one of: a logic gate, a linear classifier, and an artificial neuron.
Steinbeck teaches logic gates using waves in excitable media (“Introduction” and “Experimental Results”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer such that it is configured to act as one of: a logic gate, a linear classifier, and an artificial neuron similar to Steinbeck with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the excitable media to perform computational tasks (Steinbeck: “Discussion and Conclusions”).
Claims 37-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griesbauer (2009, “Wave Propagation in Lipid Monolayers”) in view of Kato US 20120147706 A1.
Regarding claim 37, Griesbauer teaches a signal processing device comprising:
a lipid interface arranged between the first medium and the second medium, wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules (lipid monolayer arranged between water and air, Fig. 2; “Results and Discussion: Theory” section, first paragraph);
an input transducer comprising electrodes arranged to apply an input signal to a lipid interface, the lipid interface having a thickness and being arranged between a first medium and a second medium, wherein the lipid interface comprises a plurality of lipid molecules, wherein, when applied to the lipid interface by the input transducer, the input signal generates a mechanical pulse in the lipid interface (interdigital transducers, IDT, excite sound waves on lipid monolayer; Abstract, “Introduction” section, Fig. 2)
an output transducer arranged to receive an output signal by detecting a mechanical response in the lipid interface from the mechanical pulse generated in the lipid interface by the input transducer (Force on Wilhelmy plate is used to find change in lateral pressure; Figs. 2 and 3); and,
wherein the lipid interface is arranged to propagate the mechanical pulse from the input transducer via the lipid interface to the output transducer (Fig. 2, “Experiments” section);
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach the signal processing device further comprising an amplifying transducer arranged to apply a bias voltage to the lipid interface between the input transducer and the output transducer to amplify the mechanical pulse.
Kato teaches sound wave relay devices to receive, amplify, and emit waves in a desired direction (Figs. 4-9; [0060]; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that amplifying sound waves in a lipid monolayer would require transponders using detection/excitation similar to Griesbauer, including application of a voltage through an IDT)
Additionally, amplifying relays are well-known in the art of signal processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer such that the signal processing device further comprising an amplifying transducer arranged to apply a bias voltage to the lipid interface between the input transducer and the output transducer to amplify the mechanical pulse similar to Kato with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the signal to propagate a greater distance.
Regarding claim 38, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 38 wherein the first medium comprises a liquid and the second medium comprises one of a liquid medium and a gaseous medium (air/water interface, Fig. 2; “Results and Discussion: Theory” Section, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 39, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 38 wherein the first medium and/or the second medium is viscoelastic (water medium, Fig. 2; “Results and Discussion: Theory” Section, first paragraph; water and water/lipid interfaces have viscoelastic properties).
Regarding claim 40, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 38 wherein the lipid interface comprises a monolayer of lipid molecules (lipid monolayer, Fig. 2; “Results and Discussion: Theory” Section, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 41, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 38 wherein the lipid interface exhibits non-linear behaviour, (nonlinear pressure changes in Figs. 3 and 4), for example wherein the lipid interface comprises a non-linear compressible piezo-electric film (“Experiments” section, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 42, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 38
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach wherein the amplifying transducer is configured to measure an output current owing to dielectric breakdown of the lipid interface when the propagating mechanical pulse is incident upon the amplifying transducer.
Kato teaches sound wave relay devices to receive, amplify, and emit waves in a desired direction (Figs. 4-9; [0060]; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that amplifying sound waves in a lipid monolayer would require transponders using detection/excitation similar to Griesbauer, including application of a voltage through an IDT and measurement of change in lateral pressure through Wilhelmy plate; additionally, the “output current owing to dielectric breakdown…” appears to be a feature of sound waves traveling along a lipid monolayer and a measurement of the lateral pressure would be a measure of the output current; examiner recommends clarification of structure of measuring the output current to differentiate from the cited prior art)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer such that the amplifying transducer is configured to measure an output current owing to dielectric breakdown of the lipid interface when the propagating mechanical pulse is incident upon the amplifying transducer similar to Kato with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the signal to propagate a greater distance.
Regarding claim 43, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 38
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach wherein the amplifying transducer comprises a relay.
Kato teaches sound wave relay devices to receive, amplify, and emit waves in a desired direction (Figs. 4-9; [0060]; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that amplifying sound waves in a lipid monolayer would require transponders using detection/excitation similar to Griesbauer, including application of a voltage through an IDT and measurement of change in lateral pressure through Wilhelmy plate)
Additionally, amplifying relays are well-known in the art of signal processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer such that the amplifying transducer comprises a relay similar to Kato with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the signal to propagate a greater distance.
Regarding claim 44, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 38
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach wherein a voltage input is connected to the amplifying transducer, wherein the voltage input is arranged to apply a bias voltage to the amplifying transducer.
Kato teaches sound wave relay devices to receive, amplify, and emit waves in a desired direction (Figs. 4-9; [0060]; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that amplifying sound waves in a lipid monolayer would require transponders using detection/excitation similar to Griesbauer, including application of a voltage through an IDT)
Additionally, amplifying relays are well-known in the art of signal processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer such that a voltage input is connected to the amplifying transducer, wherein the voltage input is arranged to apply a bias voltage to the amplifying transducer similar to Kato with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the signal to propagate a greater distance.
Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griesbauer (2009, “Wave Propagation in Lipid Monolayers”) in view of Kato US 20120147706 A1 and further in view of Zhu (2001, “A Multi-IDT Input Tunable Surface Acoustic Wave Filter”).
Regarding claim 45, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 38
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach comprising a plurality of input transducers and/or a plurality of output transducers and/or a plurality of amplifying transducers.
Zhu teaches multiple transducer input configurations for surface acoustic waves with the resultant wave measured at the output transducer (“B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer to include a plurality of input transducers and/or a plurality of output transducers and/or a plurality of amplifying transducers similar to Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would improve tunability (Zhu: “B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
Regarding claim 46, Griesbauer as modified above teaches the signal processing device of claim 45
Griesbauer does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of mechanical pulses are generated in the lipid interface by the plurality of input transducers and interact with each other as they propagate via the lipid interface.
Zhu teaches multiple transducer input configurations for surface acoustic waves with the resultant wave measured at the output transducer (“B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griesbauer such that a plurality of mechanical pulses are generated in the lipid interface by the plurality of input transducers and interact with each other as they propagate via the lipid interface similar to Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would improve tunability (Zhu: “B. Multi-IDT Input Configurations” section).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
O’Brien US 3970804 A teaches an electromechanical amplifier with bias signal
Tyler US 201402115936 A1 teaches mechanical waves adiabatically propagated through lipid monolayer and bilayers ([0011])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights