DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on September 23, 2025. Claims 1-26 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bhullar (U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0278097) in view of Kruusma (J. Kruusma, Electroanalytical detection of zinc in whole blood, Analytica Chimica Acta, 2004, vol. 510, page 85-90), and in view of Laurenson (US 2016/0116427), supported by Lee (U.S. Patent Pub. 2015/0027887) and Li (U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0020501) as evidence.
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, Bhullar teaches a multilayer test strip (Fig. 1; [0096] line 3: test strip 10) comprising a substrate (Fig. 2; [0096] line 4: base substrate 12) onto which is deposited an electrode assembly (Fig. 2; [0097] lines 1-3: the base substrate 12 carries an electrode system 26 including a plurality of electrodes 28 and electrode traces 30 terminating in contact pads 32) comprising
a carbon-based working electrode (Fig. 4; [0109] lines 9-10: working electrode element 44; [0105] lines 6-7: suitable conductors for the working electrode include carbon),
a carbon-based counter electrode (Fig. 4; [0109] lines 7-8: the counter electrode includes elements 40 and 42; here element 40 is deemed to be the counter electrode; [0105] lines 9-10: the counter electrode may be made of the same materials as that of the working electrode, i.e., carbon),
a pseudo reference electrode (Fig. 4; [0109] lines 7-8: the counter electrode includes elements 40 and 42; [0104] lines 8-10: the term "counter electrode" is meant to include counter electrodes which also function as reference electrodes, i.e., counter/reference electrodes; here element 42 is deemed to be the pseudo reference electrode), wherein the pseudo reference electrode, the working electrode and the counter electrode, are arranged adjacent to each other in the same plane (Fig. 4: indicating the working electrode element 44 and the counter electrode elements 40 and 42 are adjacent to each other in the same plane),
contacts for contacting each electrode directly to a voltage supply (Fig. 2; [0097] lines 2-3: a plurality of electrodes 28 and electrode traces 30 terminating in contact pads 32; [0110] line 1: the contact pads 32; [0140] lines 10-11: the application of the potential to the electrodes), and
said carbon-based working electrode and said carbon-based counter electrode of the electrode assembly layer being electrically separated from one another (Fig. 4: indicating the working electrode element 44 and the counter electrode elements 40 and 42 are physically and thus electrically separated from each other).
Bhullar does not explicitly disclose the test strip further comprising a permselective membrane layer, said electrode assembly layer being positioned between the substrate and the permselective membrane layer, wherein the permselective membrane layer consists of a cation permselective membrane, and wherein the permselective membrane layer directly contacts the working electrode (claim 1) or wherein the permselective membrane layer comprises a cation permselective membrane selected from the group of polymers consisting of a sulfonated copolymer having hydrophilic negatively charged sulfonate groups, cellulose acetate, dialysis membranes, polyvinyl sulfonate, carboxymethyl cellulose, polylysine, overoxidized polypyrrole and other sulfonated polymers (claim 9) or wherein the permselective membrane layer comprises a sulfonated copolymer having hydrophilic negatively charged sulfonate groups (claim 10).
However, Kruusma teaches a three-electrode electrochemical cell, including a working electrode, a counter electrode, and a reference electrode (p. 86, col. 1, para. 4). The Nafion-coated glassy carbon mercury electrode (NCGCMFE) was obtained by coating Nafion on the glassy carbon mercury electrode directly, i.e., by applying the Nafion solution on the electrode to form a cured polymer film (p. 86, the para. bridging cols. 1-2). Thus, Kruusma teaches a permselective membrane layer (the polymer film film) consists of a cation permselective membrane (Nafion solution), and wherein the permselective membrane layer directly contacts the working electrode (the Nafion-coating was applied directly on the electrode).
Further, since Nafion is the same material as disclosed in the specification (see page 13, lines 23-24), and thus the Nafion membrane would be a cation permselective membrane and have the same structure, a sulfonated copolymer having hydrophilic negatively charged sulfonate groups as disclosed in the specification (see page 2, line 30; page 3, lines 2-3). MPEP 2112.01(I). Also, as evidenced by Lee, it teaches a liquid barrier that consists of a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene-based fluoropolymer-copolymer, including Nafion (marketed by DuPont), which material is permeable to protons but not anions, is hydrophilic, and exhibits excellent chemical resistance and biocompatibility (Lee, [0098] lines 1, 4-9); as evidenced by Li, it teaches negatively charged polyelectrolyte (polyanion) can be any negatively charged polymer, for example, Nafion (Du Pont) (Li, [0021] lines 1-2, 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhullar by incorporating a permselective membrane, e.g., Nafion film, which consists of a sulfonated copolymer having hydrophilic negatively charged sulfonate groups, directly on a glassy carbon electrode as taught by Kruusma. The suggestion for doing so would have been that Nafion film is a suitable material for coating an electrochemical working electrode and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Since Bhullar teaches the electrode assembly layer being positioned on the substrate, and Kruusma teaches the permselective membrane layer directly on the working electrode, the combined Bhullar and Kruusma would necessarily result in the electrode assembly layer being positioned between the substrate and the permselective membrane layer.
Bhullar does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the working electrode, the pseudo reference electrode, and the counter electrode is provided with a respective contact for direct connection to the voltage supply.
However, Laurenson teaches a sensor 118 having three electrodes 120, 122, 124, three traces (e.g., wires, leads, etc.) 130, 126, 134, and three contacts 132, 128, 136 (Fig. 1; [0051]-[0052]). The first electrode 120 is a working electrode ([0053]), the second electrode 122 is a counter electrode, and the third electrode 124 is a reference electrode ([0067]). A reader 400 detects the analyte of interest using, for example, amperometric, voltammetric, and/or potentiometric techniques ([0067]). Thus, Laurenson teaches each of the working electrode, the pseudo reference electrode, and the counter electrode is provided with a respective contact, and each contact must be directly connected to a voltage supply for amperometric, voltammetric, and/or potentiometric sensing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhullar by substituting the three-electrode assembly with the one having each electrode provided with a respective contact as taught by Laurenson because such a three-electrode assembly having each electrode provided with a respective contact is suitable for amperometric, voltammetric, and/or potentiometric sensors and the substitution would yield nothing more than predictable results without changing their functions. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Regarding claim 3, Bhullar teaches the substrate is polymer ([0102] lines 1-4: the base substrate 12 comprises an insulating material, such as vinyl polymers).
Regarding claim 4, Bhullar teaches the carbon-based working electrode further comprises titanium ([0107] lines 7-9, 13-14: examples of metals or metallic-like conductors (i.e., the electrodes) include carbon, titanium, mixtures thereof).
Regarding claims 5-6, Bhullar teaches the pseudo reference electrode comprises silver (for claim 5) or silver-silver chloride (for claim 6) (Ag/AgCl) ([0105] lines 9-10: the counter electrode may be made of silver/silver chloride; here the counter electrode element 42 in Fig. 4 is deemed to be the pseudo reference electrode).
Regarding claim 7, Bhullar teaches the pseudo reference electrode comprises platinum ([0105] lines 6-7: suitable conductors for the working electrode include platinum; lines 9-10: the counter electrode may be made of the same materials as that of the working electrode; here the counter electrode element 42 in Fig. 4 is deemed to be the pseudo reference electrode).
Regarding claim 8, Bhullar teaches the contacts comprise silver (Fig. 2; [0105] lines 9-10: the counter electrode may be made of silver/silver chloride; [0110] lines 1-5: the traces 30 and the contact pads 32 that are components of the electrode system are preferably composed of the same material as the electrode; thus the contact pads 32 comprise silver).
Regarding claim 22, the designation “wherein said multilayer test strip is configured for the detection of opioids and/or their metabolites in a sample” is deemed to be functional limitation in apparatus claims with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, Bhullar in view of Kruusma and Laurenson teaches all structural limitations of the claimed multilayer test strip and thus would be capable of detecting opioids and/or their metabolites in a sample.
Regarding claim 23, the designation “configured to be used with the voltage supply providing a signal usable for differential pulse voltammetry” for the strip is deemed to be functional limitation in apparatus claims with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, Bhullar in view of Kruusma and Laurenson teaches all structural limitations of the claimed multilayer test strip and thus would be capable of being used with a power source providing a signal usable for differential pulse voltammetry.
Claim(s) 2 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhullar in view of Kruusma and Laurenson, and further in view of Deng (U.S. Patent Pub. 2006/0113187).
Regarding claim 2, Bhullar, Kruusma, and Laurenson disclose all limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim 1. Bhullar, Kruusma, and Laurenson do not explicitly disclose the carbon-based working electrode and said carbon-based counter electrode each comprises amorphous carbon.
However, Deng teaches biosensors for measuring analyte concentration in a bodily fluid ([0002] lines 1-2), including a working electrode ([0032] line 1) and a counter electrode ([0033] line 1), and at least one electrode comprises a thin film carbon material ([0040] lines 2-3). The “carbon material” is meant to encompass any allotrope of carbon, including without limitation diamond, lonsdaleite, (a hexagonal a polymorph of diamond), graphite, amorphous carbon, fullerene, and carbon nanotubes ([0040] lines 3-4, 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhullar, Kruusma, and Laurenson by substituting the carbon-based working electrode and the carbon-based counter electrode with ones comprising amorphous carbon as taught by Deng because amorphous carbon is a suitable material to be used as the working electrode and the counter electrode. The suggestion for doing so would have been that amorphous carbon is a suitable material for working electrode and the counter electrode of a biosensor and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 19, Bhullar teaches the substrate is polymer ([0102] lines 1-4: the base substrate 12 comprises an insulating material, such as vinyl polymers).
Regarding claim 20, Bhullar teaches the carbon-based working electrode further comprises titanium ([0107] lines 7-9, 13-14: examples of metals or metallic-like conductors (i.e., the electrodes) include carbon, titanium, mixtures thereof).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhullar in view of Kruusma and Laurenson, and further in view of Heller (U.S. 6,514,718).
Regarding claim 11, Bhullar, Kruusma, and Laurenson disclose all limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim 1. Bhullar, Kruusma, and Laurenson do not explicitly disclose a filter layer, wherein the strip is arranged so that the permselective membrane layer is positioned between the filter layer and the electrode assembly layer.
However, Heller teaches an enzyme biosensor (Fig. 1; Col. 1, lines 21-22), including carbon wire electrode (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 12-13: metal or carbon wire 2) and active polymer layers deposited on (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 63-64). The active polymer layers include a sensing layer, a glucose flux-limiting layer, a biocompatible layer, and optionally a peroxidase-based interferant eliminating layer (Col. 2, lines 66-67 to Col. 3, line 1), as shown in Fig. 1; on top of the metal or carbon wire 2 (i.e., the electrode layer), there is a glucose oxidase layer 8 (i.e., the sensing layer), electrically insulating and glucose diffusion limiting layer 10, and an interference eliminating layer 12 (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 12-13, 16-18, 20). Here, the glucose diffusion limiting layer is deemed to be the claimed permselective membrane, and the interference eliminating layer 12 is deemed to be the claimed filter layer, so that the permselective membrane layer (Fig. 1: the glucose diffusion limiting layer 10, corresponding to the semipermeable membrane of Kruusma) is between the filter layer (Fig. 1: interference eliminating layer 12) and the electrode assembly layer (Fig. 1: the carbon wire electrode 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhullar, Kruusma, and Laurenson by incorporating the interference eliminating layer as a filter layer as taught by Heller because the interference eliminating layer is preferred when the redox polymer having low reducing potential (Col. 6, lines 1-4) and enables elimination of interferences (Col. 12, lines 55-56), wherein the enzyme composition of the interferant eliminating layer may be altered for a specified function adding the flexibility of the elimination of interferences (Col. 6, lines 19-21). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Bhullar teaches a hydrophobic membrane/film layer (Fig. 2-3: body cover 18; [0200] lines 5-7: the body cover material is a clear poly(ethylene-terephthalate) (PET) or poly(ethylene-naphthalate) (PEN) film; [0217] lines 14-15: body cover is opaque and is preferably hydrophobic), wherein the strip is arranged so that the filter layer is filter layer is positioned between the permselective membrane layer and the hydrophobic membrane/film layer (since the body cover is on the uppermost layer of the test strip, the combined Bhullar, Kruusma, Laurenson, and Heller would necessarily result in the filter layer being positioned below the body cover and above the permselective membrane).
Claim(s) 21 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bhullar in view of Kruusma and Laurenson, and further in view of Unwin (US 2011/0297556).
Regarding claims 21 and 26, Bhullar, Kruusma, and Laurenson disclose all limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim 1. Bhullar, Kruusma, and Laurenson do not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon-based working electrode is formed from carbon nanotubes (claim 21) or wherein the carbon-based counter electrode is formed from carbon nanotubes coated by the permselective membrane (claim 26).
However, Unwin teaches carbon materials are widely used in analytical electrochemistry due to their useful attributes notably their chemical stability, wide electrochemical potential window in aqueous solution and biocompatibility (¶2). Carbon nanotubes have very different structural and electronic properties to the classical carbon materials used in electrochemistry, e.g. glassy carbon, graphite and diamond, because carbon nanotube modified electrodes exhibit very attractive electrochemical properties, including reduced overpotentials, enhanced detection limits and increased sensitivity coupled with little or no surface fouling, in comparison to other carbon based materials, usually glassy carbon (¶2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhullar, Kruusma, and Laurenson by substituting the carbon-based working electrode or the carbon-based counter electrode with the one formed from carbon nanotubes because carbon nanotube modified electrodes exhibit very attractive electrochemical properties, including reduced overpotentials, enhanced detection limits and increased sensitivity coupled with little or no surface fouling, in comparison to other carbon based materials, usually glassy carbon (¶2). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhullar, Kruusma, and Laurenson by substituting the carbon-based counter electrode with the one formed from carbon nanotubes and coated by the permselective membrane, i.e., the same as the modified working electrode, because it is suitable composition for an electrochemical electrode, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhullar in view of Kruusma and Laurenson, and further in view of Uraoka (US 2012/0267258), supported by Gordon (US 2010/0006451) and Shashidhar (US 2016/0178649) as evidence for claim 25.
Regarding claim 24, Bhullar in view of Kruusma and Laurenson teaches a system comprising: the strip of claim 1 (as described in claim 1), but fails to disclose a voltage supply in electrical connection with the strip, wherein the voltage supply is configured to provide a signal for cyclic voltammetry and/or differential pulse voltammetry.
However, Uraoka teaches an electrochemical detector 1 including a chip detection chip 20, a power source 15, an ammeter 14, an A/D converting unit 16, a control unit 17, and a display 12 (Fig. 2; [0063]). The power source 15 applies a predetermined potential to an electrode formed in the detection chip 20 ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhullar, Kruusma, and Laurenson by incorporating a voltage supply as taught by Uraoka because the voltage supply would provide a predetermined potential to be applied on electrodes and enable the electrochemical sensing. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(A).
The designation “configured to provide a signal usable for cyclic voltammetry and/or differential pulse voltammetry” for the voltage supply is deemed to be functional limitation in apparatus claims with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, Bhullar in view of Kruusma, Laurenson, and Uraoka teaches all structural limitations of the claimed system including a multilayer test strip of claim 1 and a power source, which thus would be capable of providing a signal (e.g., a predetermined potential) by a voltage supply usable for cyclic voltammetry and/or differential pulse voltammetry. Further, Laurenson teaches the apparatus determines one or more of amperometric, voltammetric, or potentiometric measurements to sense a biomolecule ([0034]).
Regarding claim 25, the designation “wherein the signal is pulsed” is deemed to be functional limitation in apparatus claims with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, Bhullar in view of Kruusma, Laurenson, and Uraoka teaches all structural limitations of the claimed system including a multilayer test strip of claim 1 and a power source, which thus would be capable of determining one or more of amperometric, voltammetric, or potentiometric measurements to sense a biomolecule (Laurenson, [0034]). As evidenced by Gordon, which teaches the types of voltammetry includes cyclic voltammetry and differential pulse voltammetry (Gordon, [0054]), and Shashidhar which teaches DPV consists of a series of regular voltage pulses superimposed on a staircase wave form (Fig. 3; [0052]), the power source of the combined Bhullar, Kruusma, Laurenson, and Uraoka system would be capable of providing a pulsed signal.
Response to Arguments
The Affidavit filed on September 23, 2025 has been acknowledged and considered. The Declarant asserts the claimed invention presents a fundamentally different and non-obvious solution compared to Kruusma and Bhullar (p. 3, Item 4, para. 4), based on the following reasons:
Kruusma describes an academic laboratory method for zinc detection using bulk, non-disposable Nafion-coated glassy carbon electrodes, which is unsuitable for point-of-care use due to the required ultrasound treatment, external reference electrodes, and manual sample handling (Item 4, para. 1).
Kruusma uses a method of adsorptive stripping voltammetry, suited for metal such as zinc, has no evidence of applicability to opioids or other electroactive organic molecules (Item 4, para. 2).
Kruusma applies a mercury layer before Nafion deposition, and there is no evidence presented that the Nafion layer by itself would improve the sensitivity or selectivity of their electrodes,. Instead, the Nafion coated electrode does not yield the desired results (Item 4, para. 3).
These reasons before Examiner would not rebut the prima facie case of obviousness over Bhullar in view of Kruusma. Here, Bhullar is relied on to teach a multilayer test strip, which is suitable for point-of-care use. The method of detection (e.g., adsorptive stripping voltammetry), which is “what a device does” instead of “what a device is,” and the intended use (e.g., detecting zinc or opioids) would not add patentable weight to apparatus claims. Regarding the mercury layer before Nafion deposition, it is a part of the electrode and thus the Nafion is directly deposited on the electrode. Although the Nafion coated electrode (i.e., Nafion-coated glassy carbon mercury film electrode NCGCMFE) has poor inherent reproducibility (Section 3.2), it does not render the device inoperable, a combined use of ultrasound and electrochemistry provides a simple rapid and quantitative solution for zinc analysis (Section 3.3 and Conclusion). Here, Examiner notes the Nafion layer would function as a matrix containing reagents that are specific to a tailored analyte to be detected.
Based on the filed affidavit, Applicant argues Kruusma fails to teach Nafion being applied directly onto a working electrode (p. 8, last para.), which is unpersuasive because the mercury layer before Nafion deposition, it is a part of the electrode. Applicant argues Bhullar teaches away from this implementation (bridging para. of pp. 8-9), as it requires a reagent layer 33 in order to perform any type of detection. This argument is unpersuasive because Nafion is a typical reagent layer in the art that it would contain reagents, e.g., enzymes, embedded in. Applicant’s argument that Kruusma implements a mercury film to improve sensitivity of the electrode is unfounded because Kruusma explicitly discloses an acoustically assisted double extraction technique (AA-DET), i.e., the combined use of ultrasound and electrochemistry, would provide a simple rapid and quantitative solution for zinc analysis (Section 3.3 and Conclusion).
Applicant argues a person skilled in the art would find no reason to consult Kruusma from the disclosure of Bhullar because the purpose of Kruusma is to design electrodes for the detection of zinc in whole blood (p. 9, para. 2). This argument is unpersuasive because both of them are directed to biosensors using electrochemistry technique, tailored to detect different analytes, which are analogous art that the person skilled in the art would find it obvious to combine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rocha (L. Rocha, Ion-exchange voltammetry of dopamine at Nafion-coated glassy carbon electrodes: Quantitative features of ion-exchange partition and reassessment on the oxidation mechanism of dopamine in the presence of excess ascorbic acid, Bioelectrochemistry 2006(69), pp. 258-266) teaches a Nafion(NA)-coated glass carbon electrode (GCE) for detecting dopamine (DA).
Nigovic (B. Nigovic, Multi-walled carbon nanotubes/Nafion composite film modified electrode as a sensor for simultaneous determination of ondansetron and morphine, Talanta 2014(122), pp. 187-194) teaches a multi-wall carbon nanotubes/Nafion polymer composite modified glassy carbon electrode (MWCNTs-Nafion/GCE) for detecting ondansertron.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. 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. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795