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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "…electrode ITO…" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition there is no definition of “ITO” provided in the claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jamali et al. (US PUB 2019/0086487), hereinafter Jamali.
With respect to claim 1, Jamali discloses a magnetic field sensor comprising: an electrically inert and optically clear substrate (See [100] in paragraph [0053] and [302] in figure 3A of Jamali) having upper (See the surface of [302] having the plurality of elements disposed thereon in figure 3A of Jamali) and lower surfaces (See the surface of [302] opposite the side having the plurality of elements disposed thereon in figure 3A of Jamali); a microwave or RF generator element disposed on an upper side of the substrate (See [310] in view of the RF generator disclosed in paragraphs [0075] and [0076] of Jamali), the generator element configured to be connected to an electrode for connection to a microwave or RF generator (See [310] in view of the RF generator disclosed in paragraphs [0075] and [0076] of Jamali); and a heterostructure organic light emitting diode (OLED) disposed adjacent the microwave or RF generator element (See the combination of structures comprising all the elements from [362] to [350] in figure 3A of Jamali), the OLED being configured to be connected to a first electrode (See [340] in figure 3A of Jamali) and a second electrode (See [348] in figure 3A of Jamali).
With respect to claim 3, Jamali discloses a sensor according to claim 1 wherein the substrate is formed from a glass, or from a rigid or flexible plastic material (See paragraph [0053] of Jamali).
With respect to claim 4, Jamali discloses a sensor according to any one of claims 1 to claim 1, wherein the OLED includes a first (See [340] in figure 3A of Jamali) or second electrode (See [348] in figure 3A of Jamali) is disposed on the upper side of the substrate (See the surface of [302] having the plurality of elements disposed thereon in figure 3A of Jamali) and the second (See [348] in figure 3A of Jamali) or first electrode is disposed above the first electrode (See [340] in figure 3A of Jamali) with a dielectric layer disposed therebetween (See paragraph [0074] of Jamali).
With respect to claim 5, Jamali discloses a sensor according to claim 1, wherein the second electrode is connected to a digital acquisition apparatus (See [380] in paragraph [0075] of Jamali).
With respect to claim 9, Jamali discloses a sensor according to claim 1, wherein the OLED is configured to be optically read through the substrate (See paragraph [0080] of Jamali).
With respect to claim 13, Jamali discloses a sensor according to claim 1, wherein the OLED is disposed within AC magnetic field B₁ of the microwave generator element field (See paragraph [0050] of Jamali).
With respect to claim 14, Jamali discloses a sensor according to claim 1, configured such that the OLED is imaged by an imaging device to provide a virtual array of OLEDs therefrom (See paragraph [0076] of Jamali).
With respect to claim 15, Jamali discloses a magnetic field sensor comprising: one or more spaced apart electrically inert and optically clear substrates (See [100] in paragraph [0053] and [302] in figure 3A of Jamali) having upper (See the surface of [302] having the plurality of elements disposed thereon in figure 3A of Jamali) and lower surfaces (See the surface of [302] opposite the side having the plurality of elements disposed thereon in figure 3A of Jamali); a plurality of spaced apart microwave or RF generator elements disposed on one substrate (See the “wires” disclosed in paragraph [0128] of Jamali in view of the RF generator disclosed in paragraphs [0075] and [0076] of Jamali) or one or more microwave or RF generator elements disposed on an upper side of each substrate, the microwave or RF generator elements each configured to be connected to an electrode for connection to a microwave or RF generator (See [310] in view of the RF generator disclosed in paragraphs [0075] and [0076] of Jamali); and a heterostructure organic light emitting diode (OLED) disposed adjacent each microwave or RF generator element (See the combination of structures comprising all the elements from [362] to [350] in figure 3A of Jamali), each OLED being configured to be connected to a first electrode (See [340] in figure 3A of Jamali) and a second electrode (See [348] in figure 3A of Jamali).
With respect to claim 16, Jamali discloses a magnetic field sensor comprising: an electrically inert and optically clear substrate (See [100] in paragraph [0053] and [302] in figure 3A of Jamali) having upper (See the surface of [302] having the plurality of elements disposed thereon in figure 3A of Jamali) and lower surfaces (See the surface of [302] opposite the side having the plurality of elements disposed thereon in figure 3A of Jamali); a microwave or RF generator element disposed on an upper side of the substrate (See [310] in view of the RF generator disclosed in paragraphs [0075] and [0076] of Jamali), the microwave or RF generator element configured to be connected to an electrode for connection to a microwave or RF generator (See [310] in view of the RF generator disclosed in paragraphs [0075] and [0076] of Jamali); and a plurality of heterostructure organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) (See paragraph [0075] of Jamali) disposed adjacent the microwave or RF generator element (See the combination of structures comprising all the elements from [362] to [350] in figure 3A of Jamali), each OLED being configured to be connected to a first electrode (See [340] in figure 3A of Jamali) and a second electrode (See [348] in figure 3A of Jamali).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamali as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US PUB 2016/0180821), hereinafter Chang.
With respect to claim 7, Jamali discloses a sensor according to claim 4 but fails to disclose wherein the first or second OLED electrode ITO is connected to a digital acquisition apparatus and the second or first OLED electrode is connected to a signal multiplexing unit. However, Chang does disclose wherein the first or second OLED electrode ITO is connected to a digital acquisition apparatus (See paragraph [0027] of Chang) and the second or first OLED electrode is connected to a signal multiplexing unit (See paragraph [0052] of Chang). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Jamali to include the features disclosed by Chang because doing so enables high density processing of signal data.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamali, and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US PUB 2023/0154318), hereinafter Nguyen.
With respect to claim 8, Jamali a sensor according to claim 1, but fails to disclose including a permanent magnet adapted to provide a static magnetic field. However, Nguyen does disclose including a permanent magnet adapted to provide a static magnetic field (See paragraph [0084] of Nguyen). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Jamali to include the feature disclosed by Nguyen because doing so enables a bias magnetic field for enhancement in detection accuracy.
With respect to claim 10, Jamali discloses a sensor according to claim 9 but fails to disclose wherein the OLED is optically read by a camera. However, Nguyen does disclose wherein the OLED is optically read by a camera (See paragraph [0062] of Nguyen). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Jamali to include the feature disclosed by Nguyen because doing so enables enhanced detection capability.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jamali and Nguyen, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wells et al. (US PUB 2018/0217510), hereinafter Wells.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Jamali and Nguyen discloses a sensor according to claim 10 but fails to disclose wherein the camera is a digital camera having a CMOS based camera sensing element. However, Wells does disclose wherein the camera is a digital camera having a CMOS based camera sensing element (See paragraph [0101] of Wells). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by the combination of Jamali and Nguyen to include the feature disclosed by Wells because doing so enhances camera resolution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 2, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the microwave or RF generator element is a split ring resonator having an open arc length wherein each end of the split ring is configured to be connected to the microwave or RF generator, and the OLED is disposed centrally within the split ring resonator.
Claim 6 depends from objected to claim 2 and is therefore also objected to.
With respect to claim 12, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements including a microscope objective disposed intermediate the camera and the OLED.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5814. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (flex schedule).
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights