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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: On Line 19, the Examiner assumes that “CMC, of the component” should actually be --CMC, of the detergent component--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 8 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend.
Claim 4 recites that the effective refractive index of the waveguide structure depends on the number of adsorbed particles. This limitation does not affect the structure as recited in claim 1, since the number of adsorbed particles is a results-effective variable.
Claim 8 recites that the detergent component is a surfactant. However, all detergents are surfactants and, therefore, the structure of the optofluidic sensor as recited in claim 1 is not affected or limited.
Claim 12 recites that the effective optical path length of the sensing arm depends on the number of adsorbed particles. This limitation does not affect the structure as recited in claim 10, since the number of adsorbed particles is a results-effective variable.
Claim 16 recites that the amount of light coupled into the signal waveguide depends on the number of adsorbed particles. This limitation does not affect the structure as recited in claim 13, since the number of adsorbed particles is a results-effective variable.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreuder et al. (US 2016/0265898), hereinafter Schreuder, in evidence of Takase et al. (US 2015/0355089), hereinafter Takase, in view of Abe (JP 2001099780, disclosed in IDS 01 November 2024), hereinafter Abe, and Fuji et al. (JP 4676402), hereinafter Fuji.
Claims 1,20: Schreuder discloses an optofluidic sensor (400, Fig. 4) operable to determine a concentration of a target analyte (“chemical analyte” [0004]) in a fluid, and a corresponding method, comprising:
a waveguide structure (430) having an input (leftmost 434), an output (rightmost 444), and a sensing region (439) [0058,0060], wherein the input is optically coupled to a light source (432) for receiving probe light [0058], the waveguide structure (430) is configured to guide the probe light from the input to the output via the sensing region (439) [0058], and the sensing region (439) is exposed to the fluid [0014];
a detection unit (446) optically coupled to the output of the waveguide structure (430) and configured to generate a detection signal based on an amount of light received from the output [0060]; and
a processing unit (implicit) configured to determine, from the detection signal received from the detection unit (446), the concentration of the target analyte in the fluid [0028].
Schreuder does not explicitly disclose wherein the amount of light received from the output depends on a number of particles of the target analyte adsorbed on a surface of the waveguide structure within the sensing region.
However, as evidenced by Takase, this correspondence between the amount of output light (from waveguide 20) and the number of surface-adsorbed particles (9, on surface 11) is inherent to waveguide sensing [0111].
Therefore, it is apparent in Schreuder’s optofluidic sensor that the amount of light received from the output depends on a number of particles of the target analyte adsorbed on a surface of the waveguide structure within the sensing region.
Schreuder also does not explicitly disclose wherein the waveguide structure, the detection unit, and the processing unit are integrated on a common substrate.
However, it has been held "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schreuder’s optofluidic sensor by integrating the waveguide structure (430), the detection unit (446), and the processing unit on a common substrate for the purpose of reducing errors due to vibrations or misalignment.
Schreuder discloses interrogating a target chemical analyte [0004], but not explicitly a detergent component.
However, language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intended use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). Abe, furthermore, in the same field of endeavor of optofluidic sensing, discloses an optofluidic sensor (Fig. 3) operable to determine a concentration of a detergent component in a fluid (“The light output greatly changed, and by monitoring the light output using this figure, the concentration of the detergent could be quickly known” [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schreuder’s optofluidic device to interrogate a detergent component for the purpose of the safety and efficacy of using the detergent for washing clothes (Abe [0009]).
Schreuder, in view of Abe, thus discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to determine, from the detection signal received from the detection unit (7), the concentration of the detergent component in the fluid (Abe [0020]), but is silent with respect to determining a deviation of the concentration from a critical micelle concentration of the detergent component.
Fuji, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensing, discloses determining a concentration of a detergent component and its deviation (at least if the measured concentration is above or below the CMC) from a critical micelle concentration, CMC, of the detergent component [0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Schreuder’s processing device to determine a deviation of the concentration from the CMC for the purpose of evaluating the cleaning ability of the detergent component (Fuji [0048]).
Claim 2: Schreuder further discloses the light source (432) configured to emit the probe light [0058].
Claim 3: Schreuder further discloses wherein the light source (432) is a laser, in particular a VCSEL or an edge-emitting laser [0058]. (Here, the Examiner interprets “in particular” to mean “wherein the laser is”.)
Claim 4: Schreuder further discloses wherein an effective refractive index of the waveguide structure (430) within the sensing region (439) depends on a number of adsorbed particles (given that the prior art discloses the structure of claim 1, this limitation is inherently met because the number of particles adsorbed is a results-effective variable).
Claim 5: Schreuder further discloses wherein the waveguide structure (430) at least in the sensing region (439) comprises an oxide interface (“silica-on-silicon”, [0006]).
Claim 6: Schreuder further discloses wherein the waveguide structure (430) at least in the sensing region (439) is formed from a silica [0006].
Claim 8: Schreuder, in view of Abe, further discloses wherein the detergent component is a surfactant (inherent, Abe [0022]).
Claim 10: Schreuder further discloses wherein the waveguide structure (430) realizes a Mach-Zehnder interferometer [0058] having a reference arm (440) and a sensing arm (438), wherein the sensing region (439) is an exposed portion of the sensing arm (438) [0059].
Claim 11: Schreuder further discloses wherein the waveguide structure (430) comprises an input waveguide (immediately after source 432), a beam splitter (leftmost splitter 434) [0058], a beam combiner (rightmost combiner 444), and an output waveguide (immediately before detector 446) [0060], wherein
the input waveguide optically couples the input of the waveguide structure (430) to the beam splitter (434) [0058] (evident from figure);
the output waveguide optically couples the beam combiner (444) to the output of the waveguide structure (430) [0060] (evident from figure);
the beam splitter (434) is configured to optically split and couple the probe light into the sensing arm (438) and the reference arm (440) [0059]; and
the beam combiner (444) is configured to optically combine and couple the probe light from the sensing arm (438) and from the reference arm (440) into the output waveguide [0060].
Claim 12: Schreuder further discloses wherein an effective optical path length of the sensing arm (438) depends on a number of particles of the detergent component adsorbed on the exposed portion of the sensing arm (438) (given that the prior art discloses the structure of claim 10, this limitation is inherently met because the number of particles adsorbed is a results-effective variable).
Claim 13: Schreuder further discloses wherein the waveguide structure (100B, Fig.1B) comprises:
a signal waveguide (114/120) optically coupling the light source to the detection unit and having a coupling region (116) [0031]; and
a whispering gallery mode, WGM, resonator (102) optically coupled to the coupling region (116) such that at least some of the probe light from the light source is coupled into and out of at least one optical whispering gallery mode of the WGM resonator (102) [0031];
wherein the sensing region (118) is an exposed portion of the WGM resonator (102) [0031].
Claim 14: Schreuder further discloses wherein the WGM resonator is a micro-ring resonator (claim 5).
Claim 15: Schreuder further discloses wherein the sensing region (118) is formed by the entire WGM resonator (102) being exposed (evident from Fig. 1B, [0031]).
Claim 16: Schreuder further discloses wherein an amount of light coupled from the WGM resonator (102) into the signal waveguide (106) depends on a number of particles of the detergent component adsorbed on the exposed portion of the WGM resonator (102) (Fig. 1B, [0032]; given that the prior art discloses the structure of claim 13, this limitation is inherently met because the number of particles adsorbed is a results-effective variable).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreuder, in evidence of Takase, in view of Abe and Fuji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0248513), hereinafter Liu.
Claim 9: Schreuder is silent with respect to a microfluidic channel.
Liu, however, in the same field of endeavor of optofluidic sensing, discloses an optofluidic sensor (10, Fig. 1) operable to determine a concentration of a target analyte (14) in a fluid, comprising:
a microfluidic channel (12) having an inlet (16) and an outlet (18) so as to provide a fluid path for the fluid, wherein a sensing region is fluidically connected to the microfluidic channel (12) [0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schreuder’s optofluidic sensor with a microfluidic channel for the purpose of allowing a particle-containing fluid to flow through (Liu [0071]).
Claim 17: Schreuder is silent with respect to a flow controller.
Liu, however, in the same field of endeavor of optofluidic sensing, discloses an optofluidic sensor (10, Fig. 1) operable to determine a concentration of a target analyte (14) in a fluid, comprising:
a flow controller that is configured to control a flow of the fluid in a sensing region [0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schreuder’s optofluidic sensor with a flow controller for the purpose of ensuring a steady stream of the fluid flow.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreuder, in evidence of Takase, in view of Abe and Fuji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Calvimontes et al. (US 2023/0172423), hereinafter Calvimontes.
Claim 18: Schreuder is silent with respect to a water-conducting household appliance.
Calvimontes, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of determining an efficient cleaning program. Calvimontes discloses a water-conducting household appliance (1) [0098].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schreuder’s optofluidic sensor by incorporating it into Calvimontes’ dishwasher so that “the degree of soiling is known as accurately as possible in order to optimize the washing program accordingly” (Calvimontes [0002]).
Claim 19: Schreuder is silent with respect to a detergent dispenser.
Calvimontes, however, discloses a detergent dispenser (15) having a controller (100) coupled to the optofluidic sensor [0098],
wherein the controller (100) is configured to control a dispensing of detergent based on a determined concentration [0098].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schreuder’s water-conducting household appliance with a detergent dispenser so that “the degree of soiling is known as accurately as possible in order to optimize the washing program accordingly” (Calvimontes [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights