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 .
Drawings
1. Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gau (US 20050092605 A1) in view of Roesicke (US 20070237678 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Gau discloses a sensor system (Abstract), comprising:
a plurality of potentiometric sensors (Par. 0024 teaches plurality of electrochemical sensors, i.e. potentiometric sensors)
wherein each of the potentiometric sensors has a sensor area of less than 1 square centimeter (Par. 0041 teaches the circular sensors having a dimension of less than 50um which would result in the area being less than 1
c
m
2
)
wherein each of the potentiometric sensors comprises one working electrode (Par. 0039 teaches there being a working electrode), and
wherein each one of the potentiometric sensors is separated from all other ones of the potentiometric sensors so as to avoid measurement crosstalk among the plurality of potentiometric sensors (Par. 0026 teaches the sensors being spaced apart from one another);
a plurality of sensor control subunits (Par. 0046 teaches different control units/circuits [41]),
wherein each of the sensor control subunits is communicatively coupled to a particular corresponding one of the plurality of potentiometric sensors, and wherein each one of the sensor control subunits is separated from all other ones of the sensor control subunits so as to avoid measurement crosstalk among the plurality of sensor control subunits (Par. 0046 teaches the control units/circuits [41] can each be coupled to a different sensor. Fig 3A shows them being spaced apart from one another) and
a main control unit communicatively coupled to each of the plurality of sensor control subunits (Par. 0054 teaches that each subunit [51] is in communication with a common, i.e. main, electronics [58]).
While Gau teaches the sensors and subunits being separated from one another, they do not explicitly teach this being a galvanically separation. However, in the same field of endeavor, Roesicke teaches an electrode system for data transmission (Abstract) wherein the electrodes are connected to one or more electronic circuits, and the electronic circuits are galvanically separated (Par. 0055) so that it would not be possible for any parasitic leakage current path to build up which could falsify the measurement (Par. 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the system of Gau and modified them by having the electrodes physically galvanically separated, as taught and suggested by Roesicke, so that it would not be possible for any parasitic leakage current path to build up which could falsify the measurement (Par. 0055 of Roesicke).
In regards to claim 2, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 1 discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the potentiometric sensors and the sensor control subunits are galvanically separated from one another by physical separation that no electrical or dielectric contact is present between the potentiometric sensors and the sensor control subunits (Par. 0055 of Roesicke, see above rejection).
In regards to claim 5 and 6, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 1 discloses the sensor system of claim 1sensor system of claim 1, except for wherein the main control unit and the plurality of sensor control subunits are galvanically separated from one another through use of wireless or capacitance power transmission, and wherein the main control unit and the plurality of sensor control subunits communicate with one another while galvanically separated by wireless, capacitance, optical or RF data signal transfer.
However, Roesicke does go on to teach there being wireless energy transfer (Par. 0031) in order to allow for a non-contact transfer (Par. 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the system of Gau and Roesicke and modified them by having the electrodes wirelessly separated, as further taught by Roesicke, in order to allow for a non-contact transfer (Par. 0031 or Roesicke).
In regards to claim 7, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 1 discloses the sensor system of claim, 1 wherein the main control unit is connected to the plurality of sensor control subunits by a switch that is configured to provide active connection between the main control unit and only one of the plurality of sensor control subunits at any point in time (Par. 0065 of Gau teaches a switch for controlling connection).
In regards to claim 8, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 7 discloses the sensor system of claim 7, wherein each of the plurality of sensor control subunits comprises an internal power storage, and wherein the internal power storage powers the sensor control subunits when not actively connected to the main control unit.
However, Roesicke does go on to teach each subunit having its own power supply (Par. 0030) in order to supply energy to each unit (Par. 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the system of Gau and Roesicke and modified them by having the electrode subunits have their own power source, as further taught by Roesicke, in order to supply energy to each unit (Par. 0030 of Roesicke).
In regards to claim 9, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 1 discloses the sensor system of claim, 1 wherein the main control unit and each of the sensor control subunits each comprise a microcontroller (Fig 3A of Gau shows there being control electronics [50] for each of the subunits).
In regards to claim 10, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 1 discloses the sensor system of claim, 1 wherein the main control unit comprises a microcontroller, and wherein each of the sensor control subunits does not comprise a microcontroller (Par. 0034 of Gau teaches there only being a main microprocessor, i.e. there not being individual microprocessors).
In regards to claim 11, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 10 discloses the sensor system of claim 10, wherein each of the sensor control subunits comprises an analog front end (Par. 0034 of Gau teaches there being analog communication links).
In regards to claim 12, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 11 discloses the sensor system of claim 11, except for wherein the analog front end comprises an application-specific integrated circuit.
However, Roesicke does go on to teach there being integrated circuits for analog data (Par. 0024) which is especially advantageous for applications on fat carrier foils which is the typical the case for analytical test elements (Par. 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the system of Gau and Roesicke and modified them by having there be IPCs, as further taught by Roesicke, which is especially advantageous for applications on fat carrier foils which is typical the case for analytical test elements (Par. 0024 of Roesicke).
In regards to claim 13, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 1 discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein the main control unit and the plurality of sensor control subunits are implemented on a printed circuit board (Par. 0011 of Gau)
In regards to claim 14 and 15, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 13 discloses the sensor system of claim 13, wherein a support layer is positioned between (1) the printed circuit board and (2) the main control unit and the plurality of sensor control subunits, and wherein the main control unit and the plurality of sensor control subunits are fixed to the support layer by a non-dielectric adhesive
However, Roesicke does go on to teach an insulating layer, i.e. support layer, between the circuit and the electrodes themselves (Par. 0056) in order to protect the circuit layer from any damages (Par. 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the system of Gau and Roesicke and modified them by having there be a support/insulating layer, as further taught by Roesicke, in order to protect the circuit layer from any damages (Par. 0046 of Roesicke).
In regards to claim 16, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 1 discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein each of the potentiometric sensors comprises only one working electrode (Par. 0026 of Gau).
In regards to claim 17, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 1 discloses the sensor system of claim 1, wherein each of the potentiometric sensors comprises no reference electrode.
However, Roesicke does go on to teach denoting the reference electrode and only using the working electrode (Par. 0116) in order to provide a fixed/resting potential (Par. 0116). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the system of Gau and Roesicke and modified them by having there be no reference electrode used, as further taught by Roesicke, in order to provide a fixed/resting potential (Par. 0116 of Roesicke).
3. Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gau and Roesicke, and in further view of Xie (US 20200261907 A1).
In regards to claims 3 and 4, the combined teachings of Gau and Roesicke as applied to claim 2 discloses the sensor system of claim 2, except for wherein the physical separation is achieved by physical bulk separation at wafer level and wherein the physical separation is achieved by a dielectric or polymeric material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xie discloses an analyte sensing system comprising electrodes (Abstract) wherein the system is constructed using a wafer (Par. 0082 and 0207) and wherein the system comprises a polymer coating (Par. 0204) in order to fluidically isolate each sensor pairs (Par. 0207). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Gau and Roesicke and modified them by having the system use wafers and polymers, as taught and suggested by Xie, in order to fluidically isolate each sensor pairs (Par. 0207 of Xie).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SKYLAR LINDSEY CHRISTIANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30-5:30 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. 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.
/S.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights