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
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 1-15 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 1 contains the trademark/trade name “Arduino”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a microcontroller platform that performs control and processing functions and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “wherein a plot of absorbance versus silver content is approximately linear, with the relationship that absorbance = 2 - log(%T) as measured by the light detector. The phrase “as measured by the light detector” is unclear because it does not specify what quantity is actually measured by the light detector. It is unclear whether the detector measures absorbance, percent transmission (%T), or another parameter from which absorbance is calculated.
Claims 2-15 are rejected based upon dependency on claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected based upon dependency on claim 11.
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.
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 1-8, 11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (“A low-cost optical sensing device based on paired emitter–detector light emitting diodes”, 2006)(hereinafter, “Lau”) in view of Oe et al. (JP 2019099890 A)(hereinafter, “Oe”).
Regarding claim 1, Lau teaches a PEDD photometer optical device (discloses PEED configuration, abstract) comprising:
two or more light emitting diodes (uses one emitter LED and one detector LED, abstract)
a ballast resistor (discloses current limiting resistor, section 4.2 Validation of LED light sensor);
a DC power source (discloses LED was charged up and held at 5V, therefore there is inherently a power source, section 4.1 Discharge of LED); and
an Arduino (discloses timer circuit and data acquisition electronics, abstract).
Lau fails to disclose two or more light emitting diodes with a peak wavelength of less than 425 nm wherein the paired detector LED senses only peak wavelength or shorter light when passing through a thin film.
Oe teaches a peak wavelength of less than 425 nm (discloses absorption around 410 nm, page 10, lines 20-23) when passing through a thin film (discloses silver nanoparticle laminated film 5 and silver nanoparticle-containing layer, page 5, lines 4-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate silver nanoparticle thin film optical layer of Oe to Lau to enhance wavelength-selective optical detection.
Regarding claim 2, Lau teaches wherein the two or more LEDs include one or more light emitting diodes that function as a light emitter and an additional light emitting diode which functions as a light detector (“a reverse-biased LED functioning as a photodiode is coupled with a second LED configured in conventional emission mode”, abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Lau teaches wherein the group of LEDs are identical single-color light emitting diodes (discloses uses identical LEDs, “emitter λmax = detector λmax = 610 nm”, section 4.5 Colour measurement with paired LED sensor system ).
Regarding claim 4, Lau teaches wherein the detector light emitting diode is connected to the device in a reverse-bias manner functioning as a photodiode (discloses “a reverse-biased LED functioning as a photodiode”, abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Lau fails to disclose wherein the thin film comprises silver nanoparticles.
Oe teaches wherein the thin film comprises silver nanoparticles (discloses silver nanoparticle laminated film 5 and silver nanoparticle-containing layer, page 5, lines 4-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate silver nanoparticle thin film optical layer of Oe to Lau to enhance wavelength-selective optical detection.
Regarding claim 6, Lau fails to disclose wherein the silver nanoparticles absorb at about 410 nm.
Oe teaches wherein the silver nanoparticles absorb at about 410 nm (discloses absorption around 410 nm, page 10, lines 20-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate silver nanoparticle thin film optical layer of Oe to Lau to enhance wavelength-selective optical detection.
Regarding claim 7, Lau fails to disclose wherein the device is capable of capturing an absorption spectrum of silver nanoparticles between about 10 nm and about 100 nm.
Oe teaches wherein the device is capable of capturing an absorption spectrum of silver nanoparticles between about 10 nm and about 100 nm (discloses silver nanoparticles including approximately 20 nm, page 11, lines 46-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate silver nanoparticle thin film optical layer of Oe to Lau to enhance wavelength-selective optical detection.
Regarding claim 8, Lau fails to disclose wherein the silver nanoparticles are about 20 nm.
Oe teaches wherein the silver nanoparticles are about 20 nm (discloses silver nanoparticles including approximately 20 nm, page 11, lines 46-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate silver nanoparticle thin film optical layer of Oe to Lau to enhance wavelength-selective optical detection.
Regarding claim 11, Lau teaches wherein a plot of absorbance versus content is approximately linear (discloses linear calibration, section 4.5. Colour measurement with paired LED sensor system), with the relationship that absorbance=2−log(% T) as measured by the light detector (discloses Beer-Lambert law, teaches the absorbance is determined from transmitted light intensity, section 2. Theoretical model and 4.5. Colour measurement with paired LED sensor system).
Oe teaches the silver nanoparticles (discloses silver nanoparticles including approximately 20 nm, page 11, lines 46-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate silver nanoparticle thin film optical layer of Oe to Lau to enhance wavelength-selective optical detection.
Regarding claim 14, Lau teaches wherein the DC power source is selected from a 5V (discloses LED was charged up and held at 5V, section 4.1 Discharge of LED), a 12V or a 24V power source.
Regarding claim 15, Lau teaches wherein the ballast resistor matches the DC power source (discloses an LED reverse biased to +5V and a current limiting resistance on the LED emitter, inherently the resistor value must be selected according to the supply voltage to control LED current, section 4.2 Validation of LED light sensor).
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (“A low-cost optical sensing device based on paired emitter–detector light emitting diodes”, 2006)(hereinafter, “Lau”) in view of Oe et al. (JP 2019099890 A)(hereinafter, “Oe”), further in view of Gaudiana et al. (US 2013/0032204 A1)( hereinafter, “Gaudiana”).
Regarding claim 9, Lau teaches wherein the light detector receives light through the from the light emitter (discloses paired LED emitter-detector photometer architecture, section 4.5. Colour measurement with paired LED sensor system).
Oe teaches thin film (discloses silver nanoparticle laminated film 5 and silver nanoparticle-containing layer, page 5, lines 4-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate silver nanoparticle thin film optical layer of Oe to Lau to enhance wavelength-selective optical detection.
Lau in view of Oe fails to disclose at least 75% of transmitted light.
Gaudiana teaches at least 75% of transmitted light (discloses electrode transmits 75% light, [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate electrode of Gaudiana to Lau in view of Oe to improve optical throughput.
Regarding claim 10, Lau fails to disclose wherein the thin film comprises silver nanoparticles and the silver content in the thin film is correlated by the light transmission percent at 400 nm to silver content.
Oe teaches wherein the thin film comprises silver nanoparticles (discloses silver nanoparticle laminated film 5 and silver nanoparticle-containing layer, page 5, lines 4-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate silver nanoparticle thin film optical layer of Oe to Lau to enhance wavelength-selective optical detection.
Gaudiana teaches light transmission percent at 400 nm (discloses optical transmission measurements including 400 nm wavelengths, [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate electrode of Gaudiana to Lau in view of Oe to improve optical throughput.
Regarding claim 12, Lau in view of Oe fails to disclose wherein the percent transmission is between about 5 percent to about 90 percent.
Gaudiana teaches wherein the percent transmission is between about 5 percent to about 90 percent ([0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate electrode of Gaudiana to Lau in view of Oe to improve optical throughput.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (“A low-cost optical sensing device based on paired emitter–detector light emitting diodes”, 2006)(hereinafter, “Lau”) in view of Oe et al. (JP 2019099890 A)(hereinafter, “Oe”), in view of Gaudiana et al. (US 2013/0032204 A1)( hereinafter, “Gaudiana”), further in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2012/0329935 A1)( hereinafter, “Matsumura”).
Regarding claim 13, Lau fails to disclose wherein the measured silver content is less than about 30 μg/cm2.
Matsumura teaches wherein the measured silver content is less than about 30 μg/cm2 ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the measured silver content of Matsumura to Lau in view of Oe in view of Gaudiana to improve optical calibration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/C.X./ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights