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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 6, “the light redirection layer can scatter light” should be “the light redirection layer is configured to scatter light” for clarity.
For claim 7, “the light redirection layer can reflect light” should be “the light redirection layer is configured to reflect light” for clarity.
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 19-20 and 24 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.
For claim 19, “directing photons at the first wavelength at the probe provides a normalization factor to account for variations in brightness of the polymer matrix” is indefinite. It is unclear how directing light provides a normalization factor. For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner reads the limitation as “providing a normalization factor to account for variations in brightness of the polymer matrix”.
Claim 20 is dependent of claim 19, and therefore rejected under this 112(b) rejection as well.
For claim 24, the limitation “wherein: the first photon source and the second photon source are modulated by a sinusoidal voltage and an intensity of a fluorescent response of the sensing dye is defined as an amplitude of a measured sinusoidal response, which is extracted via multiple linear regression” is indefinite. It is unclear what is extracted via multiple linear regression (i.e., voltage of sinusoidal signal, intensity of sinusoidal signal, amplitude of sinusoidal signal, etc.). For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner assumes the amplitude of a measured sinusoidal response is extracted via multiple linear regression.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vurek et al. (US 5119463 A, published June 2, 1992), hereinafter referred to as Vurek.
Regarding claim 1, Vurek teaches a device for carbon dioxide monitoring, the device comprising:
a photoluminescent carbon dioxide-sensitive probe comprising a polymer matrix and a sensing dye (see col. 3, lines 25-30 – “The first optical sensor and the exposed portions of the distal end of the optical waveguide are encased by a polymer matrix including a dye [sensing dye] that absorbs light of the first wavelength and transmits light of a second wavelength.”);
a photon source configured to direct photons at the probe (see col. 14, lines 22-29 – “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 5, compound probe 10 further comprises a sensing system 46. Sensing system 46 comprises a trio of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 48, 50, and 52. LED 48 produces a band of light centered about a wavelength of 555 nanometers; LED 50 produces a band of light centered about a wavelength of 585 nanometers; and LED 52 produces a band of light centered about a wavelength of about 615 nanometers.” LEDs 48, 50, 52 as photon sources directing light);
a photodetector configured to detect light emitted from the probe when the photon source directs photons at the probe (see col. 16, lines 24-29 – “Signal555 is the reflected portion of the light pulse from LED 48 that is detected by reflectance detector 66. Signal585 is the reflected portion of the light pulse from LED 50 that is detected by reflectance detector 74.” Reflectance detectors 62, 66, and 74 as photodetectors); and
a controller in electrical communication with the photon source and the photodetector (Fig. 5, signal processor 80 (controller) in electrical communication with LEDs 48, 50, 52 (photon sources) and reflectance detectors 62, 66, and 74 (photodetectors)),
the controller being configured to execute a program stored in the controller to calculate a level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe from an electrical signal received from the photodetector (see col. 15,lines 21-26 – “Reflectance detector 66 measures the amplitude of the reflected pulse from LED 48, microprocessor 80 [controller] uses a signal corresponding to this amplitude to determine the degree of absorption of the initial light pulse by the CO2 pellet 18, which is indicative of the level of CO2 [carbon dioxide] around probe 10.”),
wherein the polymer matrix comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of acrylate polymers, methacrylate polymers, polyurethane polymers, and blends and copolymers thereof (see col. 8, lines 12-19 – “Polymethylmethacrylate-based materials are an especially appropriate matrix component…Methylmethacrylate can alternatively be copolymerized…”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, Vurek further teaches the polymer matrix comprises a hydrophobic polymer (see col. 13, lines 14-18 – “This process results in a 10% solution of oxygen sensitive indicator polymer matrix designated as PT55, which, when solidified, is hydrophobic, but gas-permeable, and is used to form oxygen-sensitive polymer matrix coating 28.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Vurek further teaches wherein: the polymer matrix comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of alkyl methacrylate polymers. (see col. 9, lines 33-37 – “In an alternative approach, the CO2 sensitive indicator molecule may be covalently bonded with the MMA/MAPTAC [methylmethacrylate/ methacrylamidopropyltrimethylammonium chloride] polymer using the aminoarylalkylamines [alkyl] noted earlier to form the CO2 polymer matrix solution.”).
Regarding claim 5, Vurek teaches a device for carbon dioxide monitoring, the device comprising:
a photoluminescent carbon dioxide-sensitive probe comprising a polymer matrix and a sensing dye (see col. 3, lines 25-30 – “The first optical sensor and the exposed portions of the distal end of the optical waveguide are encased by a polymer matrix including a dye [sensing dye] that absorbs light of the first wavelength and transmits light of a second wavelength.”);
a photon source configured to direct photons at the probe (see col. 14, lines 22-29 – “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 5, compound probe 10 further comprises a sensing system 46. Sensing system 46 comprises a trio of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 48, 50, and 52. LED 48 produces a band of light centered about a wavelength of 555 nanometers; LED 50 produces a band of light centered about a wavelength of 585 nanometers; and LED 52 produces a band of light centered about a wavelength of about 615 nanometers.” LEDs 48, 50, 52 as photon sources directing light);
a photodetector configured to detect light emitted from the probe when the photon source directs photons at the probe (see col. 16, lines 24-29 – “Signal555 is the reflected portion of the light pulse from LED 48 that is detected by reflectance detector 66. Signal585 is the reflected portion of the light pulse from LED 50 that is detected by reflectance detector 74.” Reflectance detectors 62, 66, and 74 as photodetectors);
a carbon dioxide permeable light redirection layer, wherein the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe is positioned between the light redirection layer and the photodetector (Fig. 1, CO2 pellet 18 of CO2-sensitive indicator material 26 (carbon dioxide-sensitive probe) between reflective material 24 (light redirection layer) and optical waveguide 12 (includes a photodetector); see col. 15, lines 9-21 – “The light passes bidirectionally through CO2 pellet 18 and is reflected by the gold film positioned thereupon…The reflected light pulse is directed by optical splitter 60 to optical splitter 56, which in turn directs the reflected signal to a reflectance detector 66.”); and
a controller in electrical communication with the photon source and the photodetector (Fig. 5, signal processor 80 (controller) in electrical communication with LEDs 48, 50, 52 (photon sources) and reflectance detectors 62, 66, and 74 (photodetectors)),
the controller being configured to execute a program stored in the controller to calculate a level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe from an electrical signal received from the photodetector (see col. 15,lines 21-26 – “Reflectance detector 66 measures the amplitude of the reflected pulse from LED 48, microprocessor 80 [controller] uses a signal corresponding to this amplitude to determine the degree of absorption of the initial light pulse by the CO2 pellet 18, which is indicative of the level of CO2 [carbon dioxide] around probe 10.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, Vurek further teaches the light redirection layer can reflect light (see col. 15, lines 9-11 – “The light passes bidirectionally through CO2 pellet 18 and is reflected by the gold film [light redirection layer] positioned thereupon.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, Vurek further teaches a partially air-impermeable layer positioned between the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe and the photodetector (see col. 7, lines 34-37 – “Further, the polymer matrix must also permit free bidirectional movement of the subject analyte, i.e., the polymer matrix must be permeable to the CO2 and pH analytes [permeable to gas, CO2].”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 14, Vurek further teaches a partially air-impermeable outer layer (see col. 7, lines 34-37 – “Further, the polymer matrix must also permit free bidirectional movement of the subject analyte, i.e., the polymer matrix must be permeable to the CO2 and pH analytes [permeable to gas, CO2].”).
Regarding claim 17, Vurek teaches a device for carbon dioxide monitoring, the device comprising:
a photoluminescent carbon dioxide-sensitive probe comprising a polymer matrix and a sensing dye (see col. 3, lines 25-30 – “The first optical sensor and the exposed portions of the distal end of the optical waveguide are encased by a polymer matrix including a dye [sensing dye] that absorbs light of the first wavelength and transmits light of a second wavelength.”);
a first photon source configured to direct photons at a first wavelength at the probe; a second photon source configured to direct photons at a second wavelength at the probe, wherein the second wavelength is different from the first wavelength (see col. 14, lines 22-29 – “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 5, compound probe 10 further comprises a sensing system 46. Sensing system 46 comprises a trio of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 48, 50, and 52. LED 48 produces a band of light centered about a wavelength of 555 nanometers; LED 50 produces a band of light centered about a wavelength of 585 nanometers; and LED 52 produces a band of light centered about a wavelength of about 615 nanometers.” LEDs 48, 50, 52 as photon sources directing light with different wavelengths);
a photodetector configured to detect light emitted from the probe when the first photon source and the second photon source direct photons at the probe (see col. 16, lines 24-29 – “Signal555 is the reflected portion of the light pulse from LED 48 that is detected by reflectance detector 66. Signal585 is the reflected portion of the light pulse from LED 50 that is detected by reflectance detector 74.” Reflectance detectors 62, 66, and 74 as photodetectors); and
a controller in electrical communication with the first photon source and the second photon source and the photodetector (Fig. 5, signal processor 80 (controller) in electrical communication with LEDs 48, 50, 52 (photon sources) and reflectance detectors 62, 66, and 74 (photodetectors)),
the controller being configured to execute a program stored in the controller to calculate a level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe from an electrical signal received from the photodetector (see col. 15,lines 21-26 – “Reflectance detector 66 measures the amplitude of the reflected pulse from LED 48, microprocessor 80 [controller] uses a signal corresponding to this amplitude to determine the degree of absorption of the initial light pulse by the CO2 pellet 18, which is indicative of the level of CO2 [carbon dioxide] around probe 10.”).
Claims 6, 8, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vurek in view of Kahlman et al. (US 20160331289 A1, published November 17, 2016), hereinafter referred to as Kahlman.
Regarding claim 6, Vurek teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 5 above.
Vurek teaches a light redirection layer, but does not explicitly teach where the light redirection layer can scatter light.
Whereas, Kahlman, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the light redirection layer can scatter light (see para. 0062 – “…the gas permeable layer [light redirection layer] is be adapted to reflect or scatter light transmitted through the at least one sensing layer, and/or to block possible light interferences outside of the intended sensor range.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a light redirection layer, as disclosed in Vurek, by having the light redirection layer scatter light, as disclosed in Kahlman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for rtain wavelengths or ranges of wavelengths. For example, light of a certain wavelength or range of wavelengths, in particular of the excitation wavelength for the luminescent material in the sensing layer, may be reflected or scattered, whereas light of a different wave length which is not excitatory for the luminescent material in the sensing layer may not be reflected, and function as barrier to light and as permeable layer for small molecules such as CO2, as taught in Kahlman (see para. 0062).
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Kahlman further teaches wherein: the light redirection layer comprises a silicone film including a pigment (see para. 0061 – “The gas-permeable layer may further be composed of filler material which is passable for gas molecules. An example of such filler material is silicone rubber material.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 37, Kahlman further teaches wherein: the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe has a storage stability such that no significant decrease of sensitivity when the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe is stored under ambient and dark conditions for at least seven days (see para. 0095 – “In a further specific embodiment the present invention provides a chemo-optical sensor unit as defined herein which is provided in a conditioning fluid. The provision may be, for example, a packaging, storing, keeping, Suspending of the chemo-optical sensor in the conditioning fluid. This may be a short term activity, e.g. of 10 to 60 minutes, or 1 to 24 h, or a longer term activity of 1 day to several months or years, e.g. 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, 5 months, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months or more or any time period in between the indicated values.”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to keep the chemo-optical sensor unit in State which allows its immediate use or application without previous calibration or preparation steps, as taught in Kahlman (see para. 0095).
Furthermore, regarding claim 38, Kahlman further teaches wherein: the device is an optical transcutaneous device (see para. 0118 – “The chemo-optical sensor according to the present invention is suitable for transcutaneous measurement.”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform non-invasive monitoring of partial pressure of CO2, as taught in Kahlman (see para. 0005).
The motivation for claim 8 was shown previously in claim 6.
Claims 18, 29, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vurek in view of Gallant et al. (US 20140128694 A1, published May 8, 2014), hereinafter referred to as Gallant.
Regarding claim 18, Vurek teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 17 above.
Vurek teaches directing light at a first wavelength, but does not explicitly teach an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye has an isosbestic point at the first wavelength.
Whereas, Gallant, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein: an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye has an isosbestic point at the first wavelength (see para. 0186 – “A desirable feature of this indicator is that the acidic (associated HPTS form) and basic (dissociated PTS−) forms have different excitation wavelengths at 406 and 460 nm, with an isosbestic point at 418 nm…”; see para. 0189 – “The wavelength at which the absorption is the same for the acid and base forms of the dye is called the isobestic point…”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified directing light at a first wavelength, as disclosed in Vurek, by having an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye has an isosbestic point at the first wavelength, as disclosed in Gallant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make HPTS suitable for ratiometric detection of pH, as taught in Gallant (see para. 0186).
Furthermore, regarding claim 29, Gallant further teaches wherein: the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe comprises a phase transfer reagent co-embedded with the sensing dye within the polymer matrix (see para. 0165 – “In some instances, the sensing polymers are bonded to a surface such as the surface of a light conduit, or impregnated in a microporous membrane. In all cases, the matrix must not interfere with transport of the analyte to the binding sites so that equilibrium can be established between the two phases.”).
Regarding claim 55, Vurek teaches a method for detecting a concentration of an analyte, the method comprising:
(a) providing a device (Fig. 1, probe 10 as device) comprising:
(i) a probe including a polymer matrix and a sensing dye (see col. 3, lines 25-30 – “The first optical sensor and the exposed portions of the distal end of the optical waveguide are encased by a polymer matrix including a dye [sensing dye] that absorbs light of the first wavelength and transmits light of a second wavelength.”),
(ii) a first photon source configured to direct photons at a first wavelength at the probe, (iii) a second photon source configured to direct photons at a second wavelength at the probe, wherein the second wavelength is different from the first wavelength (see col. 14, lines 22-29 – “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 5, compound probe 10 further comprises a sensing system 46. Sensing system 46 comprises a trio of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 48, 50, and 52. LED 48 produces a band of light centered about a wavelength of 555 nanometers; LED 50 produces a band of light centered about a wavelength of 585 nanometers; and LED 52 produces a band of light centered about a wavelength of about 615 nanometers.” LEDs 48, 50, 52 as photon sources directing light with different wavelengths), and
(iv) a photodetector configured to detect light emitted from the probe when the first photon source and the second photon source direct photons at the probe (see col. 16, lines 24-29 – “Signal555 is the reflected portion of the light pulse from LED 48 that is detected by reflectance detector 66. Signal585 is the reflected portion of the light pulse from LED 50 that is detected by reflectance detector 74.” Reflectance detectors 62, 66, and 74 as photodetectors); and
(b) calculating a concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on the light emitted from the probe detected by the photodetector and an isosbestic point from an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye at the first wavelength (see col. 15,lines 21-26 – “Reflectance detector 66 measures the amplitude of the reflected pulse from LED 48, microprocessor 80 [controller] uses a signal corresponding to this amplitude to determine the degree of absorption of the initial light pulse by the CO2 pellet 18, which is indicative of the level of CO2 [carbon dioxide] around probe 10.”).
Vurek teaches calculating a concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on the light emitted from the probe detected by the photodetector, but does not explicitly teach calculating a concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on an isosbestic point from an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye at the first wavelength.
Whereas, Gallant, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches calculating a concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on an isosbestic point from an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye at the first wavelength (see para. 0186 – “A desirable feature of this indicator is that the acidic (associated HPTS form) and basic (dissociated PTS−) forms have different excitation wavelengths at 406 and 460 nm, with an isosbestic point at 418 nm…”; see para. 0189 – “The wavelength at which the absorption is the same for the acid and base forms of the dye is called the isobestic point…”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified calculating a concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on the light emitted from the probe detected by the photodetector, as disclosed in Vurek, by also calculating a concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on an isosbestic point from an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye at the first wavelength., as disclosed in Gallant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make HPTS suitable for ratiometric detection of pH, as taught in Gallant (see para. 0186).
The motivation for claim 29 was shown previously in claim 25.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vurek in view of Rice et al. (US 20180177443 A1, published June 28, 2018), hereinafter referred to as Rice.
Regarding claim 19, Vurek teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 17 above.
Vurek teaches directing photons at the first wavelength at the probe, but does not explicitly teach providing a normalization factor to account for variations in brightness of the polymer matrix.
Whereas, Rice, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein: directing photons at the first wavelength at the probe provides a normalization factor to account for variations in brightness of the polymer matrix (Fig. 1 and 4; see para. 0069 – “(4) calculate an intensity ratio, which is the ratio of the short-lifetime intensity to the long-lifetime intensity. Again, the intensity ratio can be used to normalize the analyte value for dynamic and tissue optics variations that occur in the tissue between single-channel sensor 110 and the surface of the skin where reader device 130, 1130 is located.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified directing photons at the first wavelength at the probe, as disclosed in Vurek, by also providing a normalization factor, as disclosed in Rice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine an accurate analyte value, as taught in Rice (see para. 0069).
Furthermore, regarding claim 20, Rice further teaches wherein: the controller is configured to execute the program stored in the controller to calculate the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe using a fluorescence ratio providing a metric that is proportional to the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe and is normalized using the normalization factor (Fig. 1 and 4; see para. 0069 – “(4) calculate an intensity ratio, which is the ratio of the short-lifetime intensity to the long-lifetime intensity. Again, the intensity ratio can be used to normalize the analyte value for dynamic and tissue optics variations that occur in the tissue between single-channel sensor 110 and the surface of the skin where reader device 130, 1130 is located.”; see para. 0035 – “The short-lifetime analyte-sensing dye in single-channel sensor 110 is an analyte-specific dye sensitive to the analyte of interest (e.g., oxygen, glucose, lactate, carbon dioxide (CO2)…”).
The motivation for claim 20 was shown previously in claim 19.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vurek in view of Wu (US 6436717 B1, published August 20, 2002), hereinafter referred to as Wu.
Regarding claim 23, Vurek teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 17 above.
Vurek teaches calculating a level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe from an electrical signal received from the photodetector, but does not explicitly teach calculating the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe by detecting intensity of the emission excited at the first wavelength and the second wavelength.
Whereas, Wu, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the controller is configured to execute the program stored in the controller to calculate the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe by detecting intensity of the emission excited at the first wavelength and the second wavelength (see Abstract – “…determining an analyte in which a dye Solution is illuminated to induce a first and a Second output light at a first and Second wavelength, respectively, and the analyte concentration is determined from the measured first and Second output intensities.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified calculating a level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe from an electrical signal received from the photodetector, as disclosed in Vurek, by calculating the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe by detecting intensity of the emission excited at the first wavelength and the second wavelength, as disclosed in Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for the system to be relatively insensitive to potential errors due to variations in the intensity of the illuminating light and to photobleaching of the dye Solution, as taught in Wu (see col. 6, lines 1-10).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vurek in view of Thomas et al. (US 5355880 A, published October 18, 1994), hereinafter referred to as Thomas.
Regarding claim 24, Vurek teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 17 above, and
Vurek further teaches wherein: the first photon source and the second photon source are modulated by a sinusoidal voltage and an intensity of a fluorescent response of the sensing dye is defined as an amplitude of a measured sinusoidal response (see col. 17, lines 7-10 – “Reflectance detector 74 measures the amplitude and produces a corresponding signal that is directed to microprocessor 80 for further processing…” where light is inherently a sinusoidal signal, and generating a light signal and measuring the amplitude of the light signal is known in the art).
Vurek teaches measuring the amplitude of a light signal, but does not explicitly teach extracting the amplitude of the light signal via multiple linear regression.
Whereas, Thomas, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the first photon source and the second photon source are modulated by a sinusoidal voltage and an intensity of a fluorescent response of the sensing dye is defined as an amplitude of a measured sinusoidal response, which is extracted via multiple linear regression (see col. 24, lines 44-45 – “Multiple Linear Regression was used to analyze the Gaussian averaged intensity spectra.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified measuring the amplitude of a light signal, as disclosed in Vurek, by extracting the amplitude of the light signal via multiple linear regression, as disclosed in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to be used even when there is overlap of spectral information from various components over all measured spectral regions, achieve increased precision from redundant information on in the spectra, can account for base-line variations, can more fully model nonlinearities, and can provide outlier detection, as taught in Thomas (see col. 8, line 65 to col. 9, line 4).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vurek in view of Ince (US 20070232874 A1, published October 4, 2007), hereinafter referred to as Ince.
Regarding claim 25, Vurek teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Vurek teaches a photodetector, but does not explicitly teach where the photodetector detects a fluorescence response of the sensing dye that provides tissue pCO2.
Whereas, Ince, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the photodetector detects a fluorescence response of the sensing dye that provides tissue pCO2 (see para. 0044 – “In this embodiment, a CO2 sensing dye can be impregnated with which CO2 can be sensed within the cup environment. The dye works to provide a fluorescence decay measurement and the excitation and emission light of this dye in the disposable tip can be measured through the light guide…Furthermore, a CO2 probe may be inserted into the nose of a patient to assess tissue pCO2…”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a photodetector, as disclosed in Vurek, by having the photodetector detect a fluorescence response of the sensing dye that provides tissue pCO2, as disclosed in Ince. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to measure tissue wellness, as taught in Ince (see para. 0043).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Riccitelli et al. (US 5054882 A, published October 8, 1991) discloses a multiple optical fiber event sensor apparatus, comprising a semi-permeable tubular sleeve, a plurality of optical fiber gas sensors, and a semi-permeable polymeric matrix having a hydrophobic portion surrounding the gas sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nyrobi Celestine/Examiner, Art Unit 3798