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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-15, drawn to a gaseous measurement device and method, classified in CPC G01N 21/783 and USPC 356/041.
Claims 16-18, drawn to a gaseous measurement device distinct from Invention I, classified in CPC G01N 33/004 and USPC 356/441.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, and/or effect. Invention I recites a sensing circuit responsive to a photodetector for computing a first and second digital signal regarding a sensed gas and a reference intensity to determine a concentration of a sensed gas. Invention II recites a monitoring circuit for identifying specifically a carbon-dioxide sensitive component of a photocurrent based on luminescence, i.e. not specifically a concentration of a sensed gas as required by Invention I. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classifications, and the inventions would also require different fields of search, as Invention I is classified within CPC G01N 21/783 and USPC 356:041, and Invention II is classified within CPC G01N 33/004 and USPC 356:441.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Christopher Lutz on 16 April 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Invention I, Claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were filed on 23 October 2024 and 11 February 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reason: Figure 6A lacks a label on the y-axis indicating what the range of the y-axis corresponds to. Examiner also wishes to note that there is no data within the plot of fig. 6a corresponding to the dark dot in the legend with legend label IPD(SEN) / IPD(REF. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to for the following reason(s): The claim recites the limitation on lines 2-3 “sensory luminophores, the emissive response by the sensory luminophores having with an intensity varied by a presence of the sensed gas”. For grammatical reasons, the claim should be corrected to “sensory luminophores having” or “sensory luminophores with”, but not both “having with”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “A Miniaturized Transcutaneous Carbon Dioxide Monitor Based on Dual Lifetime Referencing” by Tuna B. Tufan and Ulkuhan Guler (doi: 10.1109/BioCAS54905.2022.9948600) (herein after “Tufan”).
This paper is included in the proceedings for the 2022 IEEE Biomedical Circuits and Systems Conference (BioCAS), which took place 13-15 October 2022. A lecture session was given by the authors on 15 October 2022 at the conference (see appended BioCAS program schedule, C1L-B5 10:20-10:35 timeslot), and this date is used for examination purposes as the prior public availability date, outside the 1-year grace period exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1).
Regarding claim 1, Tufan discloses a gaseous measurement device (Tufan abstract ; miniaturized transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitor [gaseous measurement device]), comprising:
a sensing film having an emissive response to a sensed gas (Tufan page 145 col. 2 A. Sensing Film, paragraph 1; CO-2-sensitive luminescent film [sensing film and sensed gas], where sensing film emits in multiple wavelengths [emissive response]);
a light source, the sensing film having an emissive response to the light source based on a gaseous presence of the sensed gas (Tufan page 144, col 1 fig. 1 and paragraph 2 discloses the use of an LED [light source] which is activated, where luminescence from emission of the CO-2 sensitive sensing film based on the concentration of CO2; this is seen in the figure as well where A1 intensity is higher with LED on vs off);
a photodetector for receiving the emissive response from the sensing film (Tufan page 146 col 1 B. Measurement Electronics, paragraph 3 – col 2 paragraph 1 discloses conversion of luminescence of sensing film via a photodiode [photodetector]; photodiode captures luminescence and outputs current proportional to the luminescence intensity [receiving emissive response from sensing film]); and
a sensing circuit responsive to the photodetector (Tufan fig. 3 shows a schematic for a sensing circuit of the CO2 monitoring prototype) for computing:
i: a first digital signal indicative of a sensed gas (Tufan fig. 1 and page 145 col 1 paragraph 2 discloses the total luminescence value for sensing film is partially due to CO2 sensitive emitters of the sensing film A2, where the overall signal Φovr is considered the “first digital signal” [signal indicative of sensed gas CO2]; as disclosed above, signals from sensing film are converted to a current indicative of luminescence intensity; page 146 col 2 paragraph 1 discloses the output of the “analog front end” [beginning at the photodiode] is digitized into an oscilloscope and saved via USB [i.e. signal indicative of the sensed gas CO2 is digital]); and
ii: a second digital signal indicative of a reference intensity, such that a concentration of the sensed gas is based on a ratio of the first digital signal and the second digital signal (Tufan fig. 1 and page 145 col 1 paragraph 2 discloses that the total luminescence value for sensing film is partially due to reference luminophores emitting a reference intensity A1 as in fig. 1; as with preceding limitation, the signal is eventually digitized, so that reference signal is a digital signal indicative of a reference intensity; page 145 col 1 discloses taking the ratio between sensed gas signal and reference luminophore [concentration of sensed gas is based on ratio of first digital signal and second digital signal]).
Regarding claim 2, Tufan discloses the device of claim 1, and further teaches the device wherein:
the first digital signal is indicative of:
the emissive response from the sensing film including an emissive component based on the sensed gas and an emissive component based on a reference emission (Tufan page 145 col 1 paragraphs 2-4 and fig. 1(b) discloses capturing luminescence response during dual lifetime referencing technique (DLR), comprising the monitoring of gases; the first signal is indicative of the overall signal [overall signal includes both reference luminophore component and CO2-sensitive fluorophore component]; examiner notes that the “first digital signal indicative of the sensed gas” of claim 1 is consistent with the first signal being indicative of the emissive response of the overall signal of the current claim); and
the second digital signal is based on an emissive component based on the reference emission (Tufan page 145 col 1 paragraph 2 and fig. 1(a)/(b) discloses reference luminophores emitting a reference intensity A-1 and/or Φlum of fig. 1(b); as with claim 1, the second digital signal is indicative of a reference intensity of reference luminophores [i.e. the second digital signal is based on an emissive component based on the reference emission]).
Regarding claim 3, Tufan discloses the device of claim 1, and further teaches the device wherein the sensing film includes:
sensory luminophores responsive to the light source for emitting a response intensity based on a presence of the sensed gas (Tufan fig. 1(a)/(b) and page 145 col. 1 paragraph 2 discloses CO2-sensitive fluorophores, where fluorescence is a ‘species’ of luminescence, and therefore CO2-sensitive fluorophores are “sensor luminophores”; they emit a luminescent response A2 based on CO2 concentration [response intensity based on presence of sensed gas]); and
reference luminophores responsive to the light source for emitting a response intensity agnostic to the presence of the sensed gas (Tufan fig. 1(a)/(b) and page 145 col. 1 paragraph 2 disclose reference luminophores who’s response is not affected by changes in CO2, but does have a response to the LED light source (see fig. 1(a) for LED response of reference luminphores) [response of luminophores responsive to light source, but not to sensed gas]).
Regarding claim 6, Tufan discloses the device of claim 1, and further teaches the device wherein the sensing further comprises:
sensory lumiphores, the emissive response by the sensory luminophores having with an intensity varied by a presence of the sensed gas (Tufan fig. 1(a)/(b) and page 145 col. 1 paragraph 2 discloses CO2-sensitive fluorophores, where fluorescence is a ‘species’ of luminescence, and therefore CO2-sensitive fluorophores are “sensor luminophores”; they emit a luminescent response A2 based on CO2 concentration [response intensity based on presence of sensed gas]); and
reference luminophores (see claim 1 above),
wherein the first digital signal is indicative of a photodetector current responsive to a pulsed illumination based on an emissive intensity from both the sensory luminophores and the reference luminophores (Tufan page 145 col 1 paragraphs 2-4 and fig. 1(b) discloses capturing luminescence response during dual lifetime referencing technique (DLR), comprising the monitoring of gases; the first signal is indicative of the overall signal [overall signal includes both reference luminophore response and CO2-sensitive fluorophore response]; examiner notes that the “first digital signal indicative of the sensed gas” of claim 1 is consistent with the first signal being indicative of the emissive response of the overall signal of the current claim; fig. 1(a) shows responses from the reference luminophores and fluorophores with an LED light source ON and OFF [indicative of pulsed illumination]), and
the second digital signal is indicative of a photodetector current responsive to the pulsed illumination based on an emissive intensity from the reference luminophores (Tufan page 145 col 1 paragraph 2 and fig. 1(a)/(b) discloses reference luminophores emitting a reference intensity A-1 and/or Φlum of fig. 1(b); as with claim 1, the second digital signal is indicative of a reference intensity of reference luminophores [i.e. the second digital signal is based on an emissive intensity from the reference luminophores]).
Regarding claim 7, Tufan discloses the device of claim 6, and further teaches the device wherein the sensory luminophores are responsive to a light at a predetermined wavelength for emitting the emissive response at a sensory wavelength with an intensity indicative of the gaseous presence of the sensed gas (Tufan fig. 2 and page 145 col 2 A. Sensing Film discloses an emission of the CO2-sensitive fluorophores [sensory luminophores] at a wavelength of 505nm [emissive response at a sensory wavelength] when excited by 465nm excitation wavelength [responsive to light at a predetermined wavelength]; the emission intensity of the sensory luminophores changes with changing CO2 presence [intensity indicative of the gaseous presence of the sensed gas]); and
the reference luminophores are responsive to the light for emitting the emissive response at a reference wavelength different than the sensory wavelength (Tufan fig. 2 and page 145 col. 2 A. Sensing Film discloses an emission of the reference luminophores at a wavelength of 600nm, different than the emission wavelength of the 505nm [emissive response at a reference wavelength different than the sensory wavelength]).
Regarding claim 8, Tufan discloses the device of claim 7, and further teaches the device wherein the photodetector is responsive to light at both the sensory wavelength and the reference wavelength (Tufan page 145 col. 2 A. Sensing Film discloses that the sensing film comprising the reference luminophores and CO2 sensitive fluorophores has an emissive response at both reference and sensory wavelengths; fig. 1(a), fig. 2, and page 146 paragraph 2 discloses the photodiode [photodetector] capturing signal from the sensing film proportional to the luminescence response from the sensing film – the overall signal captured by the photodiode comprises the emissive response from both reference luminophores and CO2-sensitive fluorophores [photodetector responsive to light at both sensory and reference wavelengths]).
Regarding claim 9, Tufan discloses the device of claim 1, and further teaches the device wherein the sensing film has a dual response based on a presence of the sensed gas, the dual response covering an emission spectra between 500-510nm and between 595-605nm (Tufan fig. 2 and page 145 col. 2 A. Sensing Film discloses the CO2-sensitive fluorophore emission wavelength being 505nm [between 500-510nm] and the reference luminophore emission wavelength being 600nm [between 595-605nm]; page 145 col. 1 paragraphs 2-4 discloses that the system for monitoring gases comprises a dual lifetime referencing technique [dual response – i.e. reference and sensory emission]).
Regarding claim 10, Tufan discloses the device of claim 1, and further teaches the device wherein the sensing film is a carbon dioxide-sensitive film (Tufan at least figs 1(a)/(b) and 2 and the above mapping of claims has disclosed the sensory luminophores within the sensing film as comprising CO2-sensitive fluorophores [sensing film being a carbon dioxide-sensitive film]).
Regarding claim 11, Tufan discloses the device of claim 1, and further teaches the device wherein the light source is configured to emit a blue light (Tufan page 145 col 2 A. Sensing Film discloses an excitation light being a blue light [light source is a blue light]; this is also seen in fig. 3 where the LED driver for exciting the sensing film is an active emitter @ 465nm).
Regarding claim 12, Tufan discloses the device of claim 1, and further teaches the device wherein the light source is configured to emit a light having a wavelength of 465nm (Tufan page 145 col 2 A. Sensing Film discloses an excitation light having a wavelength of 465nm; this is also seen in fig. 3 where the LED driver for exciting the sensing film is an active emitter @ 465nm).
Regarding claim 13, Tufan discloses a method of detecting carbon dioxide (Tufan abstract discloses the monitoring of blood gases, specifically carbon dioxide; starting on page 144 col 2 II. Dual Lifetime Referencing discloses the method by which the CO-2 is monitored within the paper), comprising:
disposing a sensing film in communication with a gaseous source, the sensing film having an emissive response to a sensed gas (Tufan page 145 col. 2 A. Sensing Film, paragraph 1; CO-2-sensitive luminescent film [sensing film and sensed gas], where sensing film emits in multiple wavelengths [emissive response]; fig. 3 shows the sensing film in contact with CO2);
directing a light source at the sensing film, the sensing film responsive to the light source at a wavelength for generating the emissive response (Tufan page 144, col 1 fig. 1 and paragraph 2 discloses the use of an LED [light source] which is activated, where luminescence from emission of the CO-2 sensitive sensing film is generated based on the concentration of CO2 [emissive response]; this is seen in the figure as well where A1 intensity is higher with LED on vs off; fig. 3 shows an LED driver with active 465nm emission directing light toward the sensing film [sensing film responsive to the light source at a wavelength]);
receiving the emissive response, the emissive response received at a photodetector from a plurality of luminophore types in the sensing film (Tufan page 146 col 1 B. Measurement Electronics, paragraph 3 – col 2 paragraph 1 discloses conversion of luminescence of sensing film via a photodiode [photodetector]; photodiode captures luminescence and outputs current proportional to the luminescence intensity [receiving emissive response from sensing film]; fig. 1(a)/(b) discloses luminescence response [emissive response] from the sensing film for CO-2-sensitive fluorophores and reference luminophores, where fluorophores are a type of luminophore [plurality of luminophore types in the sensing film]);
measuring a respective digital signal from each of the plurality of luminophore types based on the emissive response (Tufan fig. 1(a)/(b) and page 145 col 1 paragraph 2 disclose the luminosity responses for both CO2-sensitive fluorophores and reference luminophores, and an overall signal Φovr which is comprised of fluorophore and luminophore components; additionally with regards to fig. 1(a), A1 is a signal of sensory fluorophore emission and A-2 is a signal of reference luminophore emission [respective signal from each of the plurality of luminophore types based on emissive response]; fig. 3 shows a schematic of a CO2 monitoring device that performs the method and page 146 col 2 paragraph 1 discloses an output of the “analog front end” (which begins at the photodiode/photodetector) that is digitized into an oscilloscope and saved via USB [output from photodetector is a digital signal]); and
computing, based on a difference in the plurality of digital signals, a concentration of the sensed gas (Tufan fig. 1(a)/(b) and page 145 col 1 paragraphs 2-4 discloses various signals A1, A3, and A4 with respect to the CO2 rich environment of fig. 1(a); a measure of the CO-2 is obtained by taking the ratio between luminescence signals when the excitation LED is on Aon vs when the excitation LED is off Aoff where Aon/Aoff = (A1 + A3) / A4; the ratio, which yields a measure of the sensed gas [concentration of the sensed gas] is dependent on the difference in the plurality of signals A1, A3, and A4; examiner notes that the limitation “computing, based on a difference in the plurality of digital signals, a concentration of the sensed gas” is demonstrated in the specification by “computing a luminescence ratio based on the intensity of the sensory luminophores and reference luminophores during the excitation phase” [i.e. A1 + A3] “and on the intensity of the reference luminophores during the decay phase” [i.e. A4], where Tufan has demonstrated the same thing in the art – this is opposed to “a difference” being confined to an absolute difference (i.e. a subtraction operation)).
Regarding claim 14, Tufan discloses the method of claim 13, and Tufan further teaches the method further comprising:
aggregating an intensity of each of the respective digital signals over an excitation phase and a decay phase (Tufan fig. 1(a) discloses luminescence intensity traces as a function of time where the LED [excitation light source] is enabled [excitation phase] and where the LED is disabled [decay phase] for two different environments (CO2 rich vs CO2 poor); trace collected shown in fig. 1(a) is an aggregation of intensity for each signal (sensory and reference) over the excitation and decay phase), and
computing a difference in the aggregated intensity for the respective digital signals for determining the concentration of the sensed gas (Tufan fig. 1(a)/(b) and page 145 col1 paragraphs 2-4, as with claim 13 above, discloses aggregated luminescence intensity signals A1, A3, and A4 with respect to the CO2 rich environment of fig. 1(a); a measure of the CO-2 is obtained by taking the ratio between luminescence intensity signals when the excitation LED is on Aon vs when the excitation LED is off Aoff where Aon/Aoff = (A1 + A3) / A4; the ratio, which yields a measure of the sensed gas [concentration of the sensed gas] is dependent on the difference in the aggregated luminescence intensity signals A1, A3, and A4; also as with claim 13 above, examiner notes that the limitation “computing a difference in the aggregated intensity for the respective digital signals for determining the concentration of the sensed gas” is demonstrated in the specification by “computing a luminescence ratio based on the intensity of the sensory luminophores and reference luminophores during the excitation phase” [i.e. A1 + A3] “and on the intensity of the reference luminophores during the decay phase” [i.e. A4], where Tufan has demonstrated the same thing in the art – this is opposed to “a difference” being confined to an absolute difference (i.e. a subtraction operation)).
Regarding claim 15, Tufan when modified by Li discloses the method of claim 14, and Tufan further teaches the method further comprising:
aggregating the intensity corresponding to a sensory luminophore of the luminophore type (Tufan fig. 1(a) discloses an aggregation of intensity for the CO2-sensitive fluorophores A4 [aggregating intensity corresponding to a sensory luminophore type]);
aggregating the intensity corresponding to a reference luminophore of the luminophore type (Tufan fig. 1(a) discloses an aggregation of intensity for the reference luminophore type A1),
wherein computing the difference further comprises computing a luminescence ratio based on the intensity of both the sensory luminophores and the reference luminophores during the excitation phase and the reference luminophores during the decay phase (Tufan fig. 1(a)/(b) and page 145 col 1 paragraphs 2-4 discloses various signals A1, A3, and A4 with respect to the CO2 rich environment of fig. 1(a); a measure of the CO-2 is obtained by taking the ratio between luminescence signals when the excitation LED is on Aon vs when the excitation LED is off Aoff where Aon/Aoff = (A1 + A3) / A4; the ratio, which yields a measure of the sensed gas [concentration of the sensed gas] is dependent on the difference in the plurality of signals A1, A3, and A4; the signals A1 and A4 (both sensory and reference luminophore intensity) are obtained during the excitation phase and signal A3 is obtained during decay phase (only reference luminophores during decay phase)).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tufan in view of US 7,479,910 B1 by Michael W. Heinks et al. (herein after “Heinks”) and further in view of US 2010/0219351 A1 by Jonathan P. Roberts et al. (herein after “Roberts”).
Regarding claim 4, Tufan discloses the device of claim 1, and further teaches the device wherein the sensing circuit includes a charge to digital converter, further comprising:
a comparator, the comparator connected to the photodetector for receiving a voltage signal indicative of the sensed gas (Tufan page 146 col. 2 paragraph 2 discloses a 5V comparator where signals VPD1 and VPD2 are fed into, signal VPD1 being the signal captured by the photodiode proportional to the luminescence response from the sensing film [comparator connected to the photodiode for receiving voltage signal of sensed gas]);
a digital to analog converter (DAC) (Tufan fig. 3 shows DAC in the simplified schematic of the CO2-sensitive monitoring device); and
a capacitor connected with the photodetector (Tufan fig. 3 shows capacitor C1 connected to a common node with the photodiode D1).
Tufan is silent to the device of claim 4, further comprising:
a digital to analog converter (DAC) connected to an output of the comparator and configured for generating a feedback current responsive to an output from the comparator.
However, Heinks does address this limitation. Tufan and Heinks are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are medical devices that track physiological conditions of a patient using electrical sensing materials and techniques.
Heinks discloses the device of claim 4, further comprising:
“a digital to analog converter (DAC) connected to an output of the comparator and configured for generating a feedback current responsive to an output from the comparator” (Heinks figs. 5 and 7 and col 11 ll. 49 – col 12 ll. 13 discloses a comparator 102, where the output of a comparator 102 is counted and that digital signal is output to a digital to analog converter DAC 86 in fig. 5 and 112 in fig. 7; col 9 ll. 52 – col 1 ll. 9 discloses that the DAC 86 forms a feedback path that applies a negative feedback to the input of the system responsive to the signal 90 input to the DAC [DAC configured for generating a feedback current responsive to an output from comparator]).
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 Tufan to incorporate a digital to analog converter (DAC) connected to an output of the comparator and configured for generating a feedback current responsive to an output from the comparator as suggested by Heinks for the advantage of utilizing higher resolution DAC feedback, increasing precision via lower noise and reducing the consumption of energy within the system (Heinks col 9 ll. 64 – col 1 ll. 1).
Tufan when modified by Heinks is silent to the device of claim 4, further comprising:
a capacitor connected in parallel with the photodetector, the capacitor receiving the feedback current for integrating an aggregate signal received from the photodetector based on the emissive response.
However, Roberts does address this limitation. Tufan, Heinks, and Roberts are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are medical devices that track physiological conditions of a patient using electrical sensing materials and techniques.
Roberts discloses the device of claim 4, further comprising:
“a capacitor connected in parallel with the photodetector, the capacitor receiving the feedback current for integrating an aggregate signal received from the photodetector based on the emissive response” (Roberts [0008] discloses a medical device in which radiation is emitted via a source and detected via a detection element; [0092] and fig. 8 discloses a photodiode 92 that is connected in parallel with capacitor 94; [0093] the photodiode is struck with emitted radiation [analogous to emissive response], where a photocurrent produced by the photodiode 92 begins to discharge the capacitor [capacitor receives a feedback current based on emissive response]; regarding the limitation “for integrating an aggregate signal received from the photodetector”, the structure within Roberts inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of this claimed apparatus [i.e. a capacitor which receives a feedback current based on emissive response obtained by the photodiode] – see MPEP §2114 I., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432).
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 Tufan in view of Heinks to incorporate a capacitor connected in parallel with the photodetector, the capacitor receiving the feedback current for integrating an aggregate signal received from the photodetector based on the emissive response as suggested by Roberts for the advantage of obtaining a metric for emissive response via the voltage drops across the capacitor due to photocurrents generated by the photodiode (Roberts [0093]-[0094]).
Regarding claim 5, Tufan when modified by Heinks and Roberts discloses the device of claim 4. Tufan when modified by Heinks is silent to the device of claim 4 further comprising: a counter, the counter connected to the output of the comparator, the counter generating a count proportional to the emissive response from the sensing film based on both the sensed gas and the reference intensity.
However, Roberts does address this limitation.
Roberts discloses the device of claim 4, further comprising:
“a counter, the counter connected to the output of the comparator, the counter generating a count proportional to the emissive response from the sensing film based on both the sensed gas and the reference intensity” (Roberts [0099] and fig. 8 disclose an integrator 98 that is connected to the output of the photodiode 92, where the integrator 98 can be replaced by a comparator [a comparator connected to the photodetector]; [0100] discloses that the output of the integrator 98/comparator can go to a counter which counts up/down based on the voltage change of the capacitor, and therefore based on the signal seen by the photodiode [generating a count proportional to the emissive response]; Tufan has been shown to disclose the emissive response obtained by the photodiode being received via the sensing film and based on comprising both sensed gas and reference intensity emissive responses – the counter of Roberts would therefore count based on the emissive response from sensed gas and reference intensity from the sensing film).
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 Tufan in view of Heinks to incorporate a counter, the counter connected to the output of the comparator, the counter generating a count proportional to the emissive response from the sensing film based on both the sensed gas and the reference intensity as suggested by Roberts for the advantage of obtaining a metric for emissive response via the voltage drops across the capacitor due to photocurrents generated by the photodiode (Roberts [0093]-[0094]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 R Chowdhury can be reached at (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 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights