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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 31 August 2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 31 August 2026, with respect to claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the §112(d) rejections of claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-11, filed 31 August 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 20 under USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of newly-found prior art.
Raptis et al. (WO 2009/115847) disclose an optofluidic sensor (100, Figs. 1a,1b) operable to determine a concentration of a target analyte in a fluid (Page 1, Lines 17-21), and a corresponding method, comprising:
a waveguide structure having an input (120), an output (123). and a sensing region (361), wherein the input (120) is optically coupled to a light source (110) for receiving probe light, the waveguide structure is configured to guide the probe light from the input (120) to the output (123) via the sensing region (361), and the sensing region (361) is exposed to the fluid (Page 5, Lines 13-20),
wherein the waveguide structure includes:
a cladding layer (131) (Page 5, Lines 17-19); and
a sensing arm (121) comprising the sensing region (361), wherein the sensing arm (121) is arranged between the input (120) and the output (123) and is configured to guide a portion of the probe light through the sensing region (361) (Page 5, Lines 17-20),
wherein, except for the sensing region (361) of the sensing arm (121), the sensing arm (121) is covered by the cladding layer (131) to protect the sensing arm (121) from the fluid (Page 5, Lines 17-19), and
wherein the cladding layer (131) does not cover the sensing region (361) of the sensing arm (121) such that the sensing region (361) of the sensing arm (121) is exposed to the fluid (Page 5, Lines 17-19).
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, 10-12, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptis et al. (WO 2009/115847), hereinafter Raptis, 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: Raptis discloses an optofluidic sensor (100, Figs. 1a,1b) operable to determine a concentration of a target analyte in a fluid (Page 1, Lines 17-21), and a corresponding method, comprising:
a waveguide structure having an input (120), an output (123). and a sensing region (361), wherein the input (120) is optically coupled to a light source (110) for receiving probe light, the waveguide structure is configured to guide the probe light from the input (120) to the output (123) via the sensing region (361), and the sensing region (361) is exposed to the fluid (Page 5, Lines 13-20),
a detection unit (140) optically coupled to the output (123) of the waveguide structure and configured to generate a detection signal based on an amount of light received from the output (Page 5, Lines 22-25); and
a processing unit (implicit) configured to determine, from the detection signal received from the detection unit (140), the concentration of the target analyte in the fluid (Page 1, Lines 17-21),
wherein the waveguide structure, the detection unit (140), and the processing unit are integrated on a common substrate (100) (Page 5, Lines 15-21),
wherein the waveguide structure includes:
a cladding layer (131) (Page 5, Lines 17-19); and
a sensing arm (121) comprising the sensing region (361), wherein the sensing arm (121) is arranged between the input (120) and the output (123) and is configured to guide a portion of the probe light through the sensing region (361) (Page 5, Lines 17-20),
wherein, except for the sensing region (361) of the sensing arm (121), the sensing arm (121) is covered by the cladding layer (131) to protect the sensing arm (121) from the fluid (Page 5, Lines 17-19), and
wherein the cladding layer (131) does not cover the sensing region (361) of the sensing arm (121) such that the sensing region (361) of the sensing arm (121) is exposed to the fluid (Page 5, Lines 17-19).
Raptis 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 Raptis’ 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.
Raptis discloses interrogating a target chemical analyte (Page 4, Lines 36-39), 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 Raptis’ optofluidic device to interrogate a detergent component for the purpose of the safety and efficacy of using the detergent for washing clothes (Abe [0009]).
Raptis, 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 Raptis’ 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: Raptis further discloses the light source (110) configured to emit the probe light (Page 5, Lines 15-17).
Claim 3: Raptis further discloses wherein the light source (110) is a laser, in particular a VCSEL or an edge-emitting laser (Page 2, Lines 41-42).
Claim 4: Raptis further discloses wherein an effective refractive index of the waveguide structure within the sensing region (361) is variable and is configured to change based on a number of particles of the detergent component adsorbed on the surface of the waveguide structure within the sensing region (361) (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: Raptis further discloses wherein the waveguide structure at least in the sensing region (361) comprises an oxide interface (Page 5, Lines 46-49).
Claim 6: Raptis further discloses wherein the waveguide structure (430) at least in the sensing region (361) is formed from a silica (Page 5, Lines 46-49).
Claim 10: Raptis further discloses wherein the waveguide structure realizes a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (Page 5, Lines 12-13) having a reference arm (122) and a sensing arm (121), wherein the sensing region (361) is an exposed portion of the sensing arm (121) (Page 5, Lines 17-19).
Claim 11: Raptis further discloses wherein the waveguide structure comprises an input waveguide (120), a beam splitter (left fork), a beam combiner (right fork), and an output waveguide (123) (Page 5, Lines 41-46), wherein
the input waveguide (120) optically couples the input of the waveguide structure to the beam splitter (evident from figure);
the output waveguide (123) optically couples the beam combiner to the output of the waveguide structure (evident from figure);
the beam splitter is configured to optically split and couple the probe light into the sensing arm (121) and the reference arm (122) (evident from figure); and
the beam combiner is configured to optically combine and couple the probe light from the sensing arm (121) and from the reference arm (122) into the output waveguide (evident from figure).
Claim 12: Schreuder further discloses wherein an effective optical path length of the sensing arm (121) is variable and is configured to change based on a number of particles of the detergent component adsorbed on the exposed portion of the sensing arm (121) (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 21: Raptis further discloses wherein the waveguide structure further includes:
a reference arm (122) arranged between the input (120) and the output (123) and is configured to guide another portion of the probe light in parallel to the sensing arm (121) (Page 5, Lines 17-19),
wherein an entire portion of the reference arm (122) is covered by the cladding layer to protect the reference arm (122) from the fluid (Page 5, Lines 17-19).
Claim 22: Raptis further discloses wherein the cladding layer defines a recess, and the sensing region (361) of the sensing arm (121) is provided within the recess (Page 5, Lines 17-19).
Claim 23: Raptis further discloses wherein a surface of the sensing arm (121), within the sensing region (361) of the sensing arm (121), is arranged to adsorb surfactant molecules of the fluid (inherent since cladding has been removed, Page 5, Lines 17-19).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptis, 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: Raptis 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 Raptis’ optofluidic sensor with a microfluidic channel for the purpose of allowing a particle-containing fluid to flow through (Liu [0071]).
Claim 17: Raptis 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 Raptis’ optofluidic sensor with a flow controller for the purpose of ensuring a steady stream of the fluid flow.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptis, in evidence of Takase, in view of Abe and Fuji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schreuder et al. (US 2016/0265898), hereinafter Schreuder.
Claim 13: Raptis is silent with respect to a WGM resonator.
Schreuder, however, in the same field of endeavor of interferometric sensing, discloses wherein a 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].
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 Raptis’ waveguide structure with a WGM resonator for the purpose of accurately measuring “the phase shift of a signal undergoing a small change in OPL [optical path length]” (Schreuder [0033]).
Claim 14: Raptis, in view of Schreuder further discloses wherein the WGM resonator is a micro-ring resonator (Schreuder, claim 5).
Claim 15: Raptis, in view of Schreuder, further discloses wherein the sensing region (118) is formed by the entire WGM resonator (102) being exposed (evident from Fig. 1B of Schreuder, [0031]).
Claim 16: Schreuder further discloses wherein the exposed portion of the WGM resonator (102) is configured to adsorb a number of particles of the detergent component such that an amount of light coupled from the WGM resonator (102) into the signal waveguide (106) depends on the number of adsorbed particles of the detergence component (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 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptis, 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: Raptis 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 Raptis’ 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: Raptis 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 Raptis’ 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 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