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 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 26 is missing a period.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 31 are 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 31 claims “The antenna array”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
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 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.
Claims 22-25, 32-34, & 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allmendinger (US 2015/0002331) in view of Castagna (US 2020/0037939).
Regarding claim 22, Allmendinger teaches a detector array for a non-invasive sensor system, the detector array comprising: a plurality of detector elements (transmit units 21 & receive units 22, [0049]), wherein each detector element includes an elongated strip ([0049]) of conductive material (metal/electrically conductive materials, [0051] or copper, [0058]) with a longitudinal axis ([0049]), wherein the plurality of detector elements includes at least one transmit detector element (transmit units 21, [0049]) for transmitting an electromagnetic transmit signal into a target (examination region of a patient, [0046]) and at least one receive detector element (receive units 22, [0049]) for receiving an electromagnetic response signal resulting from the transmission of the transmit signal into the target ([0049]), wherein each of the plurality of detector elements respectively has a perimeter length configured to decrease interference of the response signal received by the at least one receive detectors and the transmit signal transmitted by the at least one transmit detector elements ([0049] & [0052]).
Paragraphs [0049] & [0052] teach that the lengths of the antennas dictate the frequencies at which they resonate. Differently shaped and sized antennas, as are taught in [0052], would result in each antenna resonating at a different frequency, thus reducing the interference of the overall array.
However, Allmendinger fails to disclose that the response signal corresponds with an amount of an analyte in the target.
Castagna teaches that the response signal corresponds with an amount of an analyte in the target ([0053]-[0054]).
It is expected that a signal carries information related to the amplitude of the value it is measuring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Allmendinger such that the response signal corresponds with an amount of an analyte in the target, as taught by Castagna. Determining the amount of the analyte allows the operator to make a diagnosis with regard to the expected range of the analyte.
Regarding claim 23, Allmendinger in view of Castagna teach the detector array of claim 22, and Allmendinger further teaches that the at least one transmit detector element includes a first detector element with a first perimeter length ([0052]), the at least one receive detector element includes a second detector with a second perimeter length ([0052]), and the first perimeter length and the second perimeter length differ from one another ([0052]).
By configuring the antennas to have different edge lengths, as is taught in [0052], they would have different perimeter lengths.
Regarding claim 24, Allmendinger in view of Castagna teach the detector array of claim 22, and Allmendinger further teaches that a difference between the first perimeter length and the second perimeter length is configured to decrease electromagnetic coupling of the first detector element and second detector element ([0052]).
Regarding claim 25, Allmendinger in view of Castagna teach the detector array of claim 22, and Allmendinger further teaches that a first one of the detector elements has a first perimeter length, a second one of the detector elements has a second perimeter length, a third one of the detector elements has a third perimeter length, and the first perimeter length, the second perimeter length, and the third perimeter length differ from one another ([0052]).
Regarding claims 32-33, Allmendinger in view of Castagna teach the detector array of claim 22, and Allmendinger further teaches that there are six of the detector elements (Figure 1).
Figure 1 shows that the detector array has 24 detector elements. An array having 24 elements comprises having 6 elements.
Regarding claim 34, Allmendinger in view of Castagna teach the detector array of claim 22, and Allmendinger further teaches that the longitudinal axes of the detector elements are parallel to each other ([0049] & Figure 1).
Paragraph [0049] teaches that the antennas are rectangular antennas. By incorporating rectangular antennas into Figure 1, their longitudinal axes would be parallel to each other.
Regarding claim 36, Allmendinger in view of Castagna teach the detector array of claim 22, and Allmendinger further teaches that each one of the detector elements has a maximum longitudinal length and a maximum width, and the maximum longitudinal length of each detector element is the same, and the maximum width of each detector element is the same ([0049] & [0052]).
Paragraph [0049] teaches that the antennas have defined edge lengths. Additionally, [0052] teaches that the antennas “can have different edge lengths”. This suggests an embodiment in which antennas have the same length and width.
Claim 37 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 22.
Regarding claim 38, Allmendinger in view of Castagna teach the non-invasive sensor system of claim 37, and Allmendinger further teaches:
a transmit circuit connectable to the at least one transmit detector element to transmit the electromagnetic signal (Figures 5-6); and
a receive circuit connectable to the at least one receive detector element to detect the response signal (Figures 5-6).
Claims 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allmendinger in view of Castagna, as applied to claim 22, above, in further view of Chen (US 2017/0245039).
Regarding claims 26-31, Allmendinger in view of Castagna teach the detector array of claim 22.
However, Allmendinger in view of Castagna fail to disclose that the perimeter length is at least 29.4 mm and no greater than about 32.0 mm.
Chen teaches that the perimeter length is at least 29.4 mm and no greater than about 32.0 mm ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Allmendinger and Castagna such that the perimeter length is at least 29.4 mm and no greater than about 32.0 mm, as taught by Chen. A perimeter length in this range ensures that the detector elements are sufficiently small enough to be incorporated into a medical device.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allmendinger in view of Castagna, as applied to claim 22, above, in further view of Houser (US 2022/0190474).
Regarding claim 35, Allmendinger in view of Castagna teach the detector array of claim 22, and Allmendinger further teaches that one of the detector elements has a rectangular shape ([0049] & Figure 1).
However, Allmendinger in view of Castagna fail to disclose that one of the detector elements has a stadium shape and one of the detector elements has a rounded rectangle shape.
Houser teaches that one of the detector elements (antenna element 120, [0034]) has a stadium shape ([0034]) and one of the detector elements has a rounded rectangle shape ([0034]).
Although Houser does not teach that antenna elements of different shapes can exist in the same array, Allmendinger teaches this in [0052].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Allmendinger and Castagna such that one of the detector elements has a stadium shape and one of the detector elements has a rounded rectangle shape, as taught by Houser. Because different antenna shapes can detect signals of different frequencies, incorporating detector elements of multiple different shapes into the detector array increases the amount of signals that can be detected by the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM KOLKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1:00PM-10:00PM EDT.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached on (572)-270-1790. 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.
/ADAM D. KOLKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798