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 8/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, “activate” should read “active”. 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 2, 3, 5 and 6 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(s) 2, 3 and 5 is/are not in the proper Markush format. See MPEP §2173.05(h)(I). As such, the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Specifically, the claims should read “from the group consisting of A, B and C” and not “and/or C” and the transitional phrase is closed. Claim 6 is rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over G. Lee, Q. Wei, Y. Zhu, Emerging wearable sensors for plant health monitoring. Adv. Funct. Matter. 31. 3106475 (2021), hereinafter Lee in view of Z. Li, Y. Liu, O. Hoosain, R. Paul, S. Yao, S. Wu, B. B. Ristaino, Y. Shu, Q. Wei, Real-time monitoring of plant stresses via chemiresistive profiling of leaf volatiles by a wearable sensor. Matter 4, 2553-2570 (2021), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a leaf-attachable multifunctional wearable sensor patch (page 9, column 1, paragraph 4), the sensor patch comprising at least two active sensors (page 9, column 1, paragraph 4), wherein the active sensors comprise: at least one biophysical sensor (page 9, column 1, paragraph 4), wherein the sensor patch is attachable to an abaxial leaf surface (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is taught in page 9, column 1, paragraph 4), and wherein the active sensors operate simultaneously and continuously (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is taught in page 9, column 1, paragraph 4).
Lee fails to teach the at least two active sensors comprise at least one biochemical sensors.
Lee further teaches sensors that can detect certain physiological responses and other sensor modalities (e.g., deformation, humidity, and temperature) can be combined with the biomarker sensing to study the plant responses to both abiotic and biotic stresses simultaneously which would allow for the practical applications of the wearable plant sensor system, both array-based sensor system and multimodal sensing with high sensitivity and selectivity need to be achieved (page 12, column 1, paragraph 2).
Li teaches a wearable plant sensor which measures the VOC’s of plants which permits noninvasive and early diagnosis of plant diseases (Li, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the wearable sensor of Lee to include a sensor which measures the VOC’s of plants which permits noninvasive and early diagnosis of plant diseases (Li, abstract) because it would permit noninvasive and early diagnosis of plant diseases (Li, abstract) and allow for the study of the plant responses to both abiotic and biotic stresses simultaneously which would allow for the practical applications of the wearable plant sensor system (page 12, column 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches the at least one biochemical sensor is selected from the group consisting of a volatile organic compound (VOC) sensor (see supra), wherein the least one biophysical sensor is selected from the group consisting of a humidity sensor, a temperature sensor (page 9, column 1, paragraph 4) wherein the humidity sensor comprises a leaf surface humidity sensor and/or an environmental humidity sensor (page 9, column 1, paragraph 4), and wherein the temperature sensor comprises a leaf surface temperature sensor and/or an environmental temperature sensor (page 9, column 1, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee teaches the at least two active sensors are connected by flexible electrodes selected from the group consisting of carbon nanotubes (CNT), nanowire (AgNW) interconnects, liquid metals, conducting polymers, graphite, and/or graphene (Li, page 2567, paragraph 2) on a substrate comprising Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (Li, page 9, column 1, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches the at least one biochemical sensor comprises a VOC emissions sensor (see supra), and the VOC sensor comprises a hybrid network, wherein the hybrid network comprises a first component (Li, page 2555, paragraph 2, functionalized gold nanoparticles) and a second component (Li, page 2555, paragraph 2, rGO), wherein the first component comprises a functionalized gold nanoparticles (Li, page 2555, paragraph 2) , and wherein the second component comprises a graphene (Li, page 2555, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee teaches the functionalized gold nanoparticles, comprise a chemical ligand such as halothiophenol ligand (Li, page 2556, paragraph 3), wherein the halothiophenol ligand is selected from the group consisting of fluorothiophenol (FTP) ligand, chlorothiophenol (CTP) ligand, bromothiophenol (BTP) ligand, and iodothiophenol (ITP) ligand (Li, page 2556, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches the biochemical sensor comprises a first VOC sensor and a second VOC sensor, wherein the first VOC sensor comprises the FTP ligand and the second VOC sensor comprises the CTP ligand (Li, page, 2556, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the at least one biophysical sensor comprises the environmental temperature sensor (page 9, column 1, paragraph 4), and wherein the leaf surface temperature sensor and/or the environmental temperature sensor comprises Au@AgNWs (the examiner notes that the prior art teaches the environment temperature sensor only one of the leaf surface temperature sensor or the environmental temperature sensor needs to comprise the Au@AgNWs and in this case the examiner interprets the claim that the leaf surface temperature sensor comprises the Au@AgNWs and therefore is taught by Lee).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the at least one biophysical sensor comprises the environmental humidity sensor (page 9, column 1, paragraph 4), and wherein the leaf surface humidity sensor and/or the environmental humidity sensor comprises an ionomeric film (the examiner notes that the prior art teaches the environment humidity sensor only one of the leaf surface humidity sensor or the environmental humidity sensor needs to comprise the ionomeric film and in this case the examiner interprets the claim that the leaf surface humidity sensor comprises the ionomeric film and therefore is taught by Lee).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee teaches the sensor patch comprises 1 to 6 biochemical sensors and 1 to 6 biophysical sensors (see supra).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Li as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of KR 20060052134, hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee teaches the biochemical sensor comprises the VOC sensor (see supra).
However, they fail to teach the hybrid network is covered by a hydrophobic sol-gel-layer.
Park teaches a sensor device which is sensor is encapsulated in a transparent sol-gel because it improves the stability and reaction efficiency of the sensor (Park, page 3, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have covered the hybrid network in a sol-gel because it would improve the stability and reaction efficiency of the sensor (Park, page 3, paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Li as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of A. Kumar, M. O. Shaikh, R. K. R. Kumar, K. Dutt, C. Pan, C. Chuang, Highly sensitive, flexible and biocompatible temperature sensor utilizing ultra-long Au@AgNW-based polymeric nanocomposites. Nanoscale 14, 1742-1754 (2022), hereinafter Kumar.
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the at least one biophysical sensor comprises the environmental temperature sensor (page 9, column 1, paragraph 4).
However, they fail to teach the environmental temperature sensor comprises Au@AgNWs.
Kumar teaches a biocompatible temperature sensor which utilizes Au@AgNWs which is flexible, biocompatible and promise for a range of wearable applications (Kumar, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the environmental temperature sensor comprise Au@AgNWs because it is flexible and biocompatible and shows promise for a range of wearable applications (Kumar, abstract).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Li as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2005/0081625, Chen.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the at least one biophysical sensor comprises the environmental humidity sensor (page 9, column 1, paragraph 4).
However, they fail to teach the environmental humidity sensor comprises an ionomeric film.
Chen teaches a humidity sensor element which is made from Nafion (ionomeric film) as this composite increases the sensitivity of humidity sensor element such that even an infinitesimal amount of moisture can be detected with minimum detection limit of 15.76 ppm (Chen, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the environmental humidity sensor comprises an ionomeric film because it would increase the sensitivity of humidity sensor element such that even an infinitesimal amount of moisture can be detected with minimum detection limit of 15.76 ppm (Chen, abstract).
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