DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see Pg. 6-7, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to claims 1-7 and 11-16 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims. The rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-16 has been withdrawn. Claim 6 has been canceled by the Applicant.
Applicant’s amendments, see Pg. 7-9, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to claims 8-10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims. The rejection of claims 8-10 has been withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification addressed claims by claim numbers in paragraphs [0005]-[0008]. These claim numbers should be deleted from the specification, as amendment to the claims implicitly amend the specification, and there is no guarantee that the final claim numbers will match the original claim numbers.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, last line, recites “the at least modification” which is grammatically incorrect. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be read as --the at least one modification--. Claims 2-5 are objected to due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 7, lines 11-12 recites the limitation “wherein the first cellulose-based material part comprises a first diffraction grating and the second cellulose-based material part comprises a second diffraction grating” which duplicates “a first diffraction grating” on lines 8-9. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation “wherein the first cellulose-based material part comprises a first diffraction grating and the second cellulose-based material part comprises a second diffraction grating” will be read as “wherein the second cellulose-based material part comprises a second diffraction grating”. Claims 8-14 are objected to due to their dependence on claim 7.
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 5 and 14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 - last line and claim 14 - last line each recite the broad recitation “a polymeric cellulose, fibrillated cellulose, and/or fiber cellulose, cellulose nanofibril, CNF”, and the claim also recites “preferably a TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibril, TEMPO-CNF” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer program for sensing a diffraction response of a cellulose-based material subjected to physical or chemical modifications that have an adverse effect on the cellulose-based material. A claim directed to a computer program, per se, is a claim that is not directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, and is therefore rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72, 175 USPQ at 676-77.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 7-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection to the claims.
Claims 5 and 14 would be allowable for the reasons given regarding claims 1 and 7 if the 35 USC 112(b) rejections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an apparatus for sensing diffraction response of cellulose-based material subjected to physical or chemical modifications that have an adverse effect on the cellulose-based material comprising a first cellulose-based material part comprising a first diffraction grating for forming a first diffraction response and a second cellulose-based material part comprising a second diffraction grating for forming a second diffraction response, wherein the first cellulose-based material part and the second cellulose-based material part are of different optically active cellulose-based materials and the first cellulose-based material part and the second cellulose-based material part have different sensitivities to at least one modification, whereby in response to the at least one modification applied to the apparatus, the apparatus is configured to form, based on at least one of the first diffraction response and the second diffraction response, at least one output light pattern for characterizing the at least one modification.
With regard to the above claim, WO 98/43086 to Everhart discloses a sensing system comprising one or more gels coated onto a patterned, self-assembling monolayer where the monolayers form a static, passive diffraction grating under the gel (Pg. 5, line 29 – Pg. 6, line 3; Pg. 10, lines 22-25). Everhart discloses that when the sensing device is exposed to electromagnetic radiation, an optical diffraction pattern is produced which changes depending on the reaction of the gel with a stimulus of interest, and where the stimulus can be any compound that reacts with the gel directly or with an indicator substance contained in the gel (Pg. 5, line 29 – Pg. 6, line 11). Everhart does not appear to disclose the presently claimed apparatus which comprises two different cellulose-based material parts each comprising a diffraction grating and that themselves have different sensitivities to at least one modification. Specifically, Everhart fails to disclose a sensing system comprising a first cellulose-based material part comprising a first diffraction grating for forming a first diffraction response and a second cellulose-based material part comprising a second diffraction grating for forming a second diffraction response, wherein the first cellulose-based material part and the second cellulose-based material part are of different optically active cellulose-based materials and the first cellulose-based material part and the second cellulose-based material part have different sensitivities to at least one modification. Similarly, US 2011/0003279 A1 to Patel discloses a sensing device comprising a nanostructure that is generally a reactive or unstable organic, inorganic, organo-metallic or a biological material ([0013]) where, through the destruction of the nanostructure by an analyte or indicator, changes in properties of the nanostructure may be monitored to measure exposure to the analyte or indicator ([0014]). Further, Patel discloses an embodiment where the nanostructure is a diffraction grating and describes that these nanostructures may be cellulose-based (Fig. 11; [0110]; [0307]). However, Patel fails to explicitly disclose a sensing device comprising a first cellulose-based material part comprising a first diffraction grating for forming a first diffraction response and a second cellulose-based material part comprising a second diffraction grating for forming a second diffraction response, wherein the first cellulose-based material part and the second cellulose-based material part are of different optically active cellulose-based materials and the first cellulose-based material part and the second cellulose-based material part have different sensitivities to at least one modification. Lastly, US 8747886 B2 to Amsden discloses a photonic nanoimprinted silk fibroin-based material where the silk fibroin-based material is embossed with photonic nanometer scale patterns including grating patterns where disclosed applications include biological and chemical sensing (Col. 12, line 66 – Col. 13, line 16). However, Amsden fails to disclose the limitations emphasized in bold wording above.
All combinations of prior art references listed above or previously cited failed to specifically disclose the limitations emphasized in bold wording above. Therefore, the Examiner has failed to find prior art that is analogous to the invention claimed or any motivation suggesting a similar device or purpose. Claims 2-5 would be allowable due to their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an arrangement for sensing diffraction response of cellulose-based material subjected to physical or chemical modifications that have an adverse effect on the cellulose-based material comprising an optical position sensor device for capturing data and a processor connected to the optical position sensor device, wherein the processor is configured to: control the optical position sensor device to capture data from a first diffraction response formed based on at least one modification of a first cellulose-based material part comprising a first diffraction grating and a second diffraction response formed based on the at least one modification of a second cellulose-based material part of a second optically active material, wherein the second cellulose-based material part comprises a second diffraction grating, wherein the first cellulose-based material part and the second cellulose-based material part have different sensitivities to at least one modification; and determine a reading indicating the at least one modification based on the captured data.
All combinations of prior art references listed above or previously cited failed to specifically disclose the limitations emphasized in bold wording above. Therefore, the Examiner has failed to find prior art that is analogous to the invention claimed or any motivation suggesting a similar device or purpose for the same reasons outlined above for claim 1. Claims 8-14 would be allowable due to their dependence on claim 7.
Claim 15 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for sensing diffraction response of cellulose-based material subjected to physical or chemical modifications that have an adverse effect on the cellulose- based material, comprising: controlling, by a processor, an optical position sensor device to capture data from a first diffraction response formed based on at least one modification of a first cellulose-based material part of a first optically active material and a second diffraction response formed based on the at least one modification of a second cellulose-based material part of a second optically active material, wherein the first cellulose-based material part comprises a first diffraction grating and the second cellulose-based material part comprises a second diffraction grating, wherein the first cellulose-based material part and the second cellulose-based material part have different sensitivities to at least one modification; and determining, by the processor, a reading indicating the at least one modification based on the captured data.
All combinations of prior art references listed above or previously cited failed to specifically disclose the limitations emphasized in bold wording above. Therefore, the Examiner has failed to find prior art that is analogous to the invention claimed or any motivation suggesting a similar method or purpose for the same reasons outlined above for claim 1. As such, claim 15 has been found allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571)270-5789. 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.
/MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights