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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on 06/06/2024.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-19 and 28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions of Groups II and III, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/07/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains at least one of the phrases that can be implied, such as the phrase “an electrical property sensor is presented”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the title is not descriptive. A new title that would include the inventive features of the claimed invention is respectfully requested.
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.
Claims 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 5, the claim recites “an aperture length” without explaining whether the aperture length extends along the length, width, or thickness of the circuit board. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the fluid flow is a first portion of a fluid flow” without disclosing the proper antecedent basis for the phrase “the fluid flow”. The independent claim 1 recites that “a fluid flows through the aperture” without defining that the flow of “a fluid” through the aperture corresponds to “a fluid flow” because the phrase “the fluid flow” may refer to flow or flows of fluid not through the aperture or the second aperture. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites that “the temperature sensor is electrically isolated from the fluid flow” without disclosing the structural cooperation between temperature sensor and the fluid flow, the circuit board, and/or the aperture, such as the arrangement of the temperature sensor with respect to the fluid flow, the circuit board, and/or the aperture. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the positioning of the temperature sensor with respect to the fluid flow, the flow of fluid, the circuit board, and/or the aperture.
The claim recites “a temperature sensor electrically isolated from the fluid flow” without disclosing whose property or temperature configured to be measured by the temperature sensor. In this case, the temperature sensor appears optional and is not essential to the operation of the sensor as claimed.
Furthermore, the claim recites “the fluid flow” without disclosing the proper antecedent basis for the phrase “the fluid flow”. The independent claim 1 recites that “a fluid flows through the aperture” without defining that the flow of “a fluid” through the aperture corresponds to “the fluid flow”. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Williams et al. (Pat. No. US 6,210,972) (hereafter Williams).
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches an electrical property sensor comprising:
a printed circuit board with a first face separated from a second face by a thickness (i.e., a substrate (1)) (see Fig. 1), the first face having a length and a width (see Fig. 1);
an aperture extending from a first face of the printed circuit board to a second face of the printed circuit board (i.e., aperture 2) (see Fig. 1), the aperture comprising a receiving electrode (i.e., oscillating current is injected to selected electrodes 3) (see Column 4, lines 1-16) and a transmitting electrode (i.e., voltage response is measured from the corresponding electrodes 3) (see Column 4, lines 1-16); and wherein,
when a fluid flows through the aperture and a voltage is provided at the transmitting electrode (i.e., oscillating current is injected to selected electrodes 3) (see Column 4, lines 1-16), a current flow is measured at the receiving electrode (i.e., voltage response is measured from the corresponding electrodes 3) (see Column 4, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 2, Williams teaches that the current flow is convertible to an impedance value, a conductivity value (i.e., selected electrodes are charged and electrical conductivities are measured) (see Column 4, lines 1-16), or a dielectric constant signal.
Regarding claim 3, Williams teaches that the aperture is parallel to the length and perpendicular to the width (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Williams teaches that the receiving electrode and the transmitting electrode each have an electrode width that is substantially the thickness (i.e., sensor electrodes (3) extend into the aperture (2) and along the flow path) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Williams teaches that the receiving electrode and the transmitting electrode each have an electrode length less than an aperture length (i.e., sensor electrodes (3) extend into the aperture (2) and along the flow path) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Williams teaches that the receiving electrode comprises a metal (i.e., the electrodes (3)--which may be fabricated from a suitable conducting material, such as gold) (see Column 3, lines 39-42).
Regarding claim 7, Williams teaches that the transmitting electrode also comprises the metal (i.e., the electrodes (3)--which may be fabricated from a suitable conducting material, such as gold) (see Column 3, lines 39-42).
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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (Pat. No. US 6,210,972) (hereafter Williams) in view of Lin et al. (Pat. No. US 510,976,233) (hereafter Lin).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Williams as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the aperture is a first aperture, and wherein the sensor also comprises: a second aperture extending from the first face of the printed circuit board to the second face of the printed circuit board, the second aperture comprising a second receiving electrode and a second transmitting electrode; wherein the fluid flow is a first portion of a fluid flow and, when a second portion of the fluid flows through the second aperture, a second impedance signal is generated using the second transmitting and receiving electrodes (claim 8);
wherein the second receiving electrode is decoupled from the first receiving electrode, such that the impedance signal and the second impedance signal differ (claim 9).
Regarding the apertures, Lin teaches that the aperture is a first aperture, and wherein the sensor also comprises: a second aperture extending from the first face of the printed circuit board (i.e., particle detector 140 include substrate SUB) (see Column 3, line 61, to Column 4, line 67) to the second face of the printed circuit board (i.e., the substrate SUB may include a plurality of sensing nano-pores SNP) (see Column 3, line 61, to Column 4, line 67), the second aperture comprising a second receiving electrode and a second transmitting electrode (i.e., pairs of sensing electrodes E are disposed on the substrate SUB. Each pair of sensing electrodes E is located adjacent to or around one of the sensing nano-pores SNP, respectively) (see Column 3, line 61, to Column 4, line 67); wherein the fluid flow is a first portion of a fluid flow and, when a second portion of the fluid flows through the second aperture (i.e., one skilled in the art may properly modify the number and the pore size of the dummy nano-pores DNP and the sensing nano-pores SNP in accordance with the flowrate of the fluid delivered in the sampling pipe 130) (see Column 4, lines 55-67), a second impedance signal is generated using the second transmitting and receiving electrodes (i.e., each pair of sensing electrodes E is located adjacent to or around one of the sensing nano-pores SNP, respectively) (see Column 5, line 28, to Column 6, line 57) (claim 8);
wherein the second receiving electrode is decoupled from the first receiving electrode, such that the impedance signal and the second impedance signal differ (i.e., when nano-particles contained in the fluid pass through the sensing nano-pores SNP of the substrate SUB, resistance variation may be detected and/or recorded through the sensing electrodes E and the control circuit 300) (see Column 5, line 28, to Column 6, line 57) (claim 9).
In view of the teaching of Lin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a plurality of measuring apertures in order to improve the accuracy and sensitivity of the flow measurements.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (Pat. No. US 6,210,972) (hereafter Williams) in view of Loderer et al. (Pat. No. US 10,960,125) (hereafter Loderer).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Williams as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach a temperature sensor (claim 10);
wherein the temperature sensor is electrically isolated from the fluid flow (claim 11).
Regarding the temperature sensor, Loderer teaches a temperature sensor (i.e., temperature sensor 19) (see Fig. 2) (claim 10);
wherein the temperature sensor is electrically isolated from the fluid flow (i.e., the temperature sensor 19 is preferably an infra-red sensor that has no direct contact with the fluid F, for example blood, flowing in the tube T) (see Column 7, lines 33-57) (claim 11).
In view of the teaching of Loderer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a temperatures sensor in order to improve accuracy of flow measurement by using thermal compensation techniques.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights