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
Claims 1-14 are currently pending. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 13, and 14 have been amended to overcome the claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 26 May 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4-14 objected to because of the following informalities:
“said device” in line 2 of claim 1 should read as “said micro-device”
“the polarity” in line 7 of claim 1 should read as “a polarity”
“said direct supply current” in line 20 of claim 1 should read as “said source of low-voltage direct supply current”
“said direct supply current” in line 23 of claim 1 should read as “said source of low-voltage direct supply current”
“positive pulse signals” in line 27 of claim 1 should read as “positive current pulses”
“negative pulses” in line 27 of claim 1 should read as “negative current pulses”
“said fast acting switch” in line 28 of claim 1 should read as “said at least two fast-acting switches”
“said sample storage and hold capacitor” in lines 29-30 of claim 1 should read as “said sample and hold capacitor”
“an accumulated charge” in line 30 of claim 1 should read as “said accumulated incremental charges”
“said accumulated charge” in line 32 in claim 1 should read as “said accumulated incremental charges”
“the calculated” in line 40 of claim 1 should read as “a calculated”
“said current supply line” in line 3 of claim 4 should read as “said source of low-voltage direct current supply line”
“said direct supply current” in line 2 of claim 5 should read as “said source of low-voltage direct current supply line”
“said direct current supply line” in lines 4-5 of claim 5 should read as “said low voltage direct current supply line”
“said series positive pulse signals and said series negative pulse signals are square wave form” in lines 2-3 of claim 6 should read as “said series of positive current pulses and said series of negative current pulses are square wave forms”
“at least one fast-acting switch” in lines 2-3 of claim 7 should read as “at least two fast-acting switches”
“negative pulse signal” in line 5 of claim 7 should read as “negative current pulses”
“negative pulses” in line 3 of claim 8 should read as “negative current pulses”
“negative pulses” in line 3 of claim 9 should read as “negative current pulses”
“said fast acting analog switch” in line 4 of claim 9 should read as “said at least two fast-acting switches”
“negative pulses” in line 3 of claim 10 should read as “negative current pulses”
“positive pulses” in line 3 of claim 11 should read as “positive current pulses”
“negative pulses” in line 3 of claim 12 should read as “negative current pulse”
“said Kelvin connected sensing electrodes” in lines 9-10 of claim 13 should read as “said at least two Kelvin connected sensing electrodes”
“one fast acting switch” in lines 10-11 of claim 13 should read as “two fast-acting switches”
“the increment” in line 21 of claim 14 should read as “the increments”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for transmission in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“means for transmission” is interpreted as “an external receiver” as mentioned in [0056] of the PGPUB
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 3, 7, and 11-13 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. Claims 2, 4-6, and 8-10 are further rejected due to their dependency to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “said first and second Kelvin connected sensing electrodes disposed between said first and second Kelvin connected driving electrodes” in lines 16-18. However, it is unclear how these electrodes are connected. It is unclear if the Kelvin sensing electrodes are disposed in series or in parallel of the Kelvin driving electrodes. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said first and second Kelvin connected driving electrodes” in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a pair of Kelvin connected electrodes” as mentioned in line 10. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “a series of positive pulses and a series of negative pulses of direct current” in lines 33-34 of claim 1. It is unclear if this is the same as “a series of positive current pulses…[and] a series of negative pulses” as mentioned in lines 19 and 22 of claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “said Kelvin connected positive driving electrode” and “said Kelvin connected negative driving electrode” in lines 2-3 and 4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to “pair of Kelvin connected electrodes” as mentioned in line 10 of claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the microsample of incremental charge” in line 4 of claim 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the accumulated incremental charges mentioned in lines 25-26 of claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitation “said waveform” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what this limitation is referring to as “waveform” was not previously recited. Clarification is requested.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “said Kelvin connected positive driving electrode” in lines 3-4 and “said Kelvin connected negative driving electrode” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to “pair of Kelvin connected electrodes” as mentioned in line 10 of claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “accumulating said microsamples of incremental charge” in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the accumulated incremental charges mentioned in lines 25-26 of claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that that the amendments to “transmission means for transmitting” would overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the “means for” language is a generic placeholder. “Means for transmitting” is a generic placeholder plus function and completes the 3-prong analysis as mentioned in section 2181 of the MPEP. As such, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation remains invoked.
Applicant has argued that the amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. However, additional issues were raised due to the amendments. As such, new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been implemented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights