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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3, and 17 have been amended. Claims 8-11, 18 and 22 were previously withdrawn. Claims 5-7 and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 8-19, and 21-22 are currently pending and claims 1-4, 12-17, 19, and 21 are examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
The claim objections are maintained as outlined below.
All 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the original claim 20 which has been canceled.
All 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6: please amend “and is connected” to “and the reference terminal lead is connected” for purposes of clarity.
Claim 21, line 1: “claim [1]19” should read “claim [[1]]19" in order to clearly indicate the deleted subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner refers the applicant to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) when amending the claims. For example, claims 4 and 12 have been indicated as being currently amended, however they were previously amended and are not currently amended. 37 CFR 1.121(c) states the following: The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. All "currently amended" claims must include markings to indicate the changes made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). Only claims having the status of "currently amended," or "withdrawn" if also being amended, shall include markings. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of "original," "withdrawn" or "previously presented" will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of "withdrawn" or "previously presented." Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of "new" and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
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) 1-4, 12-17, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrahy et al. (US20220187239A1) in view of Rutz et al. (US20170299546A1) and Wunderlich et al. (US20170219512A1). LibreTexts et al. (pH Electrodes, 2025, LibreTexts, Pages 1-2, https://chem.libretexts.org/@go/page/78017?pdf) used as evidence for claims 16-17. Chieh et al. (Electrolytes, 2025, LibreTexts, Pages 1-4, https://chem.libretexts.org/@go/page/31605?pdf) used as evidence for claim 21.
Regarding claim 1, a sensor arrangement (Garrahy teaches a sensor structure, [Figs. 4A-4B, Abstract, Para. 0019-0020, and 0062]], comprising:
a storage chamber (Garrahy teaches a storage compartment 300, [Para. 0054 and 0062, Figs. 4A-4B]) comprising:
an interior space that contains a reference liquid, a storage liquid, or a calibration liquid, with an opening (Garrahy teaches the storage chamber 300 comprises an interior space that contains a reference liquid electrolyte 266 and a storage liquid medium 322, with an opening at the bottom of the storage chamber near the sealing element 310b [Figs. 4A-4B, Para. 00063-064]), and
a reference terminal lead which contacts the reference liquid, the storage liquid, or the calibration liquid (Garrahy teaches a half-cell elemental lead 264 [corresponding to a reference terminal lead] which contacts the reference liquid electrolyte 266 [Para. 0064 and Fig. 4A]) and;
a sensor tube (Garrahy teaches a sensing element 200 including a body 202, which is a tube, [Para. 0064 and Figs. 4A-4B]), comprising:
a sensitive region for detecting a measured quantity of a measuring medium (Garrahy teaches a sensing surface 210 [corresponding to a sensitive region] which is immersed in a process medium 410 for detecting the pH, [Para, 0064-0066 and Figs. 4A-4B]), and
a measuring terminal lead (Garrahy teaches a half-cell elemental lead 204, [Para. 0064 and Figs. 4A-4B])
wherein the sensor tube is movably arranged in the opening of the storage chamber and is movable between a first position and a second position (Garrahy teaches the sensor tube 200 is movably arranged in the opening of the storage chamber 300 [located at the bottom of the storage chamber near the sealing element 310b] and the sensor tube 200 is moveable between a first position as seen in Fig. 4A and a second position as seen in Fig. 4B by moving in the longitudinal direction. Once the pH is measured, the sensing element 200 can then be retracted into the storage compartment 300 [Para, 0064-0066 and Figs. 4A-4B]);
wherein the sensitive region is arranged on or in the sensor tube in the first position, wherein the sensitive region is located in the interior space of the storage chamber and, in the second position, the sensitive region is located outside the storage chamber (Garrahy teaches the sensing surface 210 is arranged on or in the sensor tube 200 where in a first position, as seen in Fig. 4a, the sensing surface 410 is located in the interior space of the storage chamber 300 and in the second position, Fig. 4B, the sensing surface 410 is located outside the storage chamber 300 and immersed in the process medium 410, [Para, 0064-0066 and Figs. 4A-4B]),
wherein the storage chamber, the opening, and the sensor tube are designed such that, in the first position, the reference liquid or the storage liquid is prevented from escaping from the interior space (Garrahy teaches the storage chamber 300, the opening located at the bottom of the storage chamber, and the sensor tube 200 is designed such that in a first position as seen in Fig. 4a, the storage liquid medium 322 is prevented from escaping from the interior space, preventing or minimizing fluid exchange [Para, 0064-0066 and Figs. 4A-4B])’
wherein the storage chamber, the opening, and the sensor tube are designed such that a liquid transport is formed in the second position (Garrahy teaches the storage chamber 300, the opening located at the bottom of the storage chamber, and the sensor tube 200 is designed such that a liquid transport/channel is formed in the second position as seen in Fig. 4B, through the liquid junction 260 [Figs. 4A-4B and Paras. 0064-0065]); and
the limitation “wherein in the second position, a transport-forming element effectuates the liquid transport between the measuring medium and the storage chamber” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Garrahy teaches the above liquid junction 260 [corresponding to a transport-forming element] as shown in Fig. 4 that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Garrahy teaches a liquid junction 260 [corresponding to a transport-forming element] arranged wherein in the second position of the sensor tube 200 as seen in Fig. 4b, the liquid transport/channel through the liquid junction 260 is filled with reference liquid 266, because the liquid junction 260 is in fluid communication with the reference liquid 266 [Figs. 4a-4b, Para. 0064-0065]. Thus, Garrahy teaches in the second position as seen in Fig. 4B, the liquid junction 260 effectuates the liquid transport/channel between the measuring medium 410 and the reference liquid 266 that is in an interior space of the storage chamber, thus effectuating the liquid transport between the measuring medium and the storage chamber, and is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above [see e.g., Fig. 4A-4B, see rejection above and Para. 0064-0065]).
wherein the transport-forming element is Garrahy teaches the liquid junction 260 [corresponding to a transport-forming element] is arranged on or at the sensor tube/sensing element 200 [Figs. 4a-4b, Para. 0064-0065]).
Garrahy does not explicitly disclose wherein the transport-forming element is designed as an annular diaphragm.
Rutz teaches an electrochemical sensor for potentiometric measurements and in particular pH sensors [Abstract and Para. 0004]. Rutz further teaches a liquid junction 223 which is disposed as an annular diaphragm, and is beneficial as such liquid junctions are known for their robust nature and are particularly used in highly contaminated applications and tough environments [Para. 0047 and Fig. 2c].
Garrahy and Rutz are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pH sensors [Para. 0004 of Rutz and Para. 0003 of Garrahy]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the liquid junction/transport-forming element that is arranged on or at the sensor tube of Garrahy to be designed as an annular diaphragm, as taught by Rutz, since Rutz teaches it would be beneficial as such liquid junctions are known for their robust nature and are particularly used in highly contaminated applications and tough environments [Para. 0047 of Rutz]. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Modified Garrahy does not explicitly disclose “the reference terminal lead is connected to a superordinate unit” and “wherein the sensitive region is electrically connectable to the superordinate unit via the measuring terminal lead”.
Wunderlich discloses a potentiometric pH sensor having a measuring half cell and a reference half cell [Para. 0019]. Wunderlich teaches arranged in the reference half cell chamber 17 is a chloridized silver wire “reference terminal lead” and arranged in the measuring half cell chamber 15 is a potential sensing element, e.g., a chloridized silver wire, “measuring terminal lead”, wherein the sensor arrangement and at least one sensor element includes an ion-selective membrane 16 “sensitive region” integrated into a portion of the wall of the measuring half cell chamber 15 [Para. 0020-0021, 0044-0046; Figs. 1-2 and claim 8]. Wunderlich further teaches the potential sensing element, which contacts the inner electrolyte and is connected electrically conductively to the ion-selective membrane 16, such as a pH glass membrane “sensitive region”, and the reference element are both connected with a superordinated electronic data processing system by means of a plugged connection as the reference half cell chamber 17 and the measuring half cell chamber 15 are connected to a measurement circuit which is electrically conductively connected to the superordinated electronic data processing system [Para. 0020-0021, 0044 -0046 and Figs. 1-2], and therefore Wunderlich discloses the ion-selective membrane is electrically connectable to the superordinated electronic data processing system via the potential sensing element “measuring terminal lead”. Wunderlich specifically teaches this configuration is beneficial for transmission of measurement signals and/or data [Paras. 0046].
Modified Garrahy and Wunderlich are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pH sensors [Para. 0019 of Wunderlich and Para. 0003 of Garrahy]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reference terminal lead and measuring terminal lead of Garrahy to be connected to a superordinated electronic data processing system, wherein the sensitive region is electrically connectable to the superordinated electronic data processing system via the measuring terminal lead, as taught by Wunderlich, since Wunderlich teaches this configuration would be beneficial for transmission of measurement signals and/or data [Paras. 0046 of Wunderlich]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results, MPEP 2143[I][A].
Regarding claim 2, the sensor arrangement of claim 1, wherein the storage chamber is arranged coaxially around the sensor tube (Garrahy teaches the storage chamber 300 is arranged coaxially around the sensor tube 200 because they share a central point and the tube 200 is placed inside the chamber 300, and the chamber 300 surrounds the tube 200 [Para. 0062-0065 and Fig. 4a, 4b]).
Regarding claim 3, the sensor arrangement of claim 1, comprising: a measuring cell for receiving the measuring medium, wherein the measuring cell is connected to the storage chamber via the opening, and wherein, in the second position, the sensitive region is located in the measuring cell (Garrahy teaches a measuring cell/bioreactor 400 for receiving process medium 410, wherein the measuring cell/bioreactor 400 is connected to the storage chamber 300 via the opening at the bottom of the storage chamber 300, and in the second position as seen in Fig. 4B, the sensing surface 210/sensitive region is located in the measuring cell 400 and process medium 410 [Para, 0062-0066 and Figs. 4A-4B]).
Regarding claim 4, the sensor arrangement of claim 3, wherein the measuring cell and the storage chamber are designed as one piece (Garrahy teaches the measuring cell/bioreactor 400 and the storage chamber 300 are designed as one piece, because the storage chamber 300 is integrated with the flexible wall of the bioreactor/measuring cell 400 [Para. 0062 and Figs. 4a, 4b]).
Regarding claim 12, the sensor arrangement of claim 1, the embodiment of Fig. 4 of Garrahy does not explicitly disclose wherein the storage chamber comprises one or more filling openings for the reference liquid, the storage liquid, or the calibration liquid.
However, Garrahy teaches in another embodiment that the storage compartment can include ports or other openings, such as an inlet port, to replace, refill, or alter the volume or composition of the storage medium, which is beneficial for allowing access to the storage medium within the storage compartment without compromising the sterility of the storage compartment [Fig. 7 and Para. 0078].
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage chamber of the embodiment of Fig. 4 of Garrahy to provide one or more filling openings for the storage liquid medium, as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 7 of Garrahy, since Garrahy teaches it would be beneficial for allowing access to the storage medium within the storage compartment without compromising the sterility of the storage compartment [Fig. 7 and Para. 0078]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results, MPEP 2143[I][A].
Regarding claim 13, the sensor arrangement of claim 1, the embodiment of Fig. 4 of Garrahy does not explicitly disclose a housing that is in mechanical contact with the sensor tube, and a movement of the housing causes a movement of the sensor tube.
However, Garrahy teaches in another embodiment that the sensor structure can include a sensor housing 1502 and 1504, that is in mechanical contact with a sensor element/tube 1520 as seen in Figs. 11A and 11B [Fig. 11 and Para. 0086]. Garrahy further teaches movement of the movable component/housing 1504 allows the sensing element 1520 to be translated from a first position to a second position [Para. 0088-0089] which is a suitable alternative design for single-use sensors such as a single-use pH sensor [Para. 0086].
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor arrangement of the embodiment of Fig. 4 of Garrahy to provide a housing that is in mechanical contact with the sensor tube, and a movement of the housing causes a movement of the sensor tube, as taught by the embodiment of Figs. 11 of Garrahy, since Garrahy teaches it would be a suitable alternative design for single-use sensors, such as for a single-use pH sensor [Para. 0086]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results, MPEP 2143[I][A].
Regarding claim 14, the sensor arrangement of claim 1, the embodiment of Fig. 4 of Garrahy does not explicitly disclose wherein a housing is arranged like a sleeve around the storage chamber.
However, Garrahy teaches in another embodiment that the sensor structure can include a sensor housing 1502 that is arranged like a sleeve around the storage compartment 1540, since it is a protective tube fitting over the storage compartment [Figs. 11-12 and Para. 0085-0088 and 0094], which is a suitable alternative design for single-use sensors such as a single-use pH sensor [Para. 0086].
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage chamber of the embodiment of Fig. 4 of Garrahy to provide a housing that is arranged like a sleeve around the storage chamber, as taught by the embodiment of Figs. 11-12 of Garrahy, since Garrahy teaches it would be a suitable alternative design for single-use sensors, such as for a single-use pH sensor [Para. 0086]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results, MPEP 2143[I][A].
Regarding claim 15, the sensor arrangement of claim 1, the limitation “wherein the sensor arrangement is designed as a potentiometric sensor arrangement with the sensor tube as part of a measuring half-cell and the storage chamber as part of a reference half-cell” is a functional limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Garrahy teaches the above sensor structure, sensor tube 200 and storage compartment 300 as shown in Figs. 4a and 4b that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Garrahy teaches the sensor structure is designed as a pH sensor [corresponding a potentiometric sensor arrangement] with the sensor tube 200 as part of a measuring half-cell since it includes the measuring half-cell elemental lead 204 and an internal electrolyte 206. The sensor tube and the storage chamber comprising the reference half-cell terminal lead 264, the reference electrolyte 266 and the storage liquid medium 322 is part of a reference half-cell, thus is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above [Para. 0062-0064 and Figs. 4a, 4b])
Regarding claim 16, the sensor arrangement of claim 1, wherein the sensitive region is designed as an ion-selective membrane (Garrahy teaches the sensitive region/sensing surface 210 is a section of a glass pH electrode [Para. 0050]. A glass pH electrode and pH glass is an ion-selective membrane and is selective to H+ ions, as evidenced by LibreTexts [Page 1, Paras. 1-4 of LibreTexts] and the instant specification which states, an ion-selective glass e.g., pH glass [Para. 0088 of the instant specification]).
Regarding claim 17, the sensor arrangement of claim 16, wherein the ion-selective membrane is designed as a glass membrane (Garrahy teaches the sensitive region/sensing surface 210 is a section of a glass pH electrode [Para. 0050]. A glass pH electrode and pH glass is a glass membrane and is selective to H+ ions, as evidenced by LibreTexts [Page 1, Paras. 1-4 of LibreTexts] and the instant specification which states, an ion-selective glass e.g., pH glass [Para. 0088 of the instant specification]).
Regarding claim 19, the sensor arrangement of claim 1, wherein the reference liquid, the storage liquid, or the calibration liquid is formed from an aqueous electrolyte solution (Garrahy teaches the reference liquid 266 is an internal electrolyte that is a fluid, and thus is aqueous as seen in Figs. 4A-4B [Para. 0064 and Figs. 4A-4B]).
Regarding claim 21, the sensor arrangement according to claim 19, wherein the aqueous electrolyte solution contains ions forming a potential of the reference terminal lead (Garrahy teaches the reference liquid 266 is an electrolyte solution, and electrolyte solutions inherently contain ions and that are dissolved in water, and conduct electricity, thus, forming a potential, as evidenced by Chieh [Page 1, Para. 2 and Page 2, Para. 6 of Chieh]. Thus, the reference liquid 266 contains ions forming the potential of the reference terminal lead 264 [Para. 0064 and Figs. 4a-4b of Garrahy]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 7-11, filed 01/28/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered and are not persuasive and all 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues on page 9 that claim 1 has been amended to recite, among other elements and features, “wherein in the second position, a transport-forming element effectuates the liquid transport between the measuring medium and the storage chamber, wherein the transport-forming element is designed as an annular diaphragm arranged on or at the sensor tube; wherein the transport-forming element is arranged annularly in the opening, and the sensor tube at an end region comprises a plate seal which radially surrounds the transport-forming element and seals off the storage chamber in the first position.” Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 1-6, 15-17, 19 and 21 is overcome and should be withdrawn because Garrahy, Libre Texts and Chieh do not teach expressly or inherently all elements of independent claim 1.
Examiner’s Response #1:
First, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Second, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments are unpersuasive because Modified Garrahy teaches all structural limitations as presently claimed device and thus anticipate the claims or render the claims obvious in view of other cited references. The distinctions as argued by applicant are as functional limitations, which do not add patentable weight to the presently claimed device. As outlined in the rejection above, a functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Garrahy teaches the above liquid junction 260 [corresponding to a transport-forming element] as shown in Fig. 4 that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Garrahy teaches a liquid junction 260 [corresponding to a transport-forming element] arranged wherein in the second position of the sensor tube 200 as seen in Fig. 4b, the liquid transport/channel through the liquid junction 260 is filled with reference liquid 266, because the liquid junction 260 is in fluid communication with the reference liquid 266 [Figs. 4a-4b, Para. 0064-0065]. Thus, Garrahy teaches in the second position as seen in Fig. 4B, the liquid junction 260 effectuates the liquid transport/channel between the measuring medium 410 and the reference liquid 266 that is in an interior space of the storage chamber, thus effectuating the liquid transport between the measuring medium and the storage chamber, and is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above [see e.g., Fig. 4A-4B, see rejection above and Para. 0064-0065]).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. wherein the transport-forming element is arranged annularly in the opening, and the sensor tube at an end region comprises a plate seal which radially surrounds the transport-forming element and seals off the storage chamber in the first position) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the prior art discloses all the required limitations as outlined in the rejections above.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the plate seal 17 [which is not currently recited in the examined claims] is part of a non-elected embodiment, Species D, and not a part of the elected embodiment Species A as outlined in the restriction requirement mailed on 09/06/2024.
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that the transport-forming element 26 is arranged annularly in the opening 6, and the sensor tube 7 comprises at the measuring cell-side and a plate seal 17 with an axially or radially arranged sealing element 17a, 17b (Fig. 3c and Fig. 3d show both embodiments, wherein only one sealing element 17a, 17b can also be used), wherein the plate seal 17 radially surrounds the transport-forming element 26 and seals the storage chamber 2 with respect to the measuring cell 5 in the first position, and exposes the diaphragm to the measuring medium in the second position.
Applicant further argues a key element of the present disclosure is that the transport-forming element (10, 16, 26), such as, for example, a diaphragm, enables electronic/ionic contact between the measuring medium and the reference electrode, when the sensing tube is in the second position. The first position is adapted for storage purposes, before the sensor is being used. And, in the second position, the transport-forming element (10, 16, 26) is arranged so that its upper part is in contact with the storage chamber (which includes the electrode) and the lower part is in contact with the measuring medium. In contrast, the prior art sensor does not disclose such a transport-forming element, which, in the first position, together with a plate seal 17, isolates the storage/reference medium from the outer medium and in the second position serves as a liquid contact-forming element.
Examiner’s Response #2:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e the transport-forming element is arranged so that its upper part is in contact with the storage chamber (which includes the electrode) and the lower part is in contact with the measuring medium, as well as a storage/reference medium that is isolated and a plate seal 17 in the first position) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the prior art discloses all the required limitations as outlined in the rejections above.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the plate seal 17 [which is not currently recited in the examined claims] is part of an unelected embodiment, Species D, and not a part of the elected embodiment Species A as outlined in the restriction requirement mailed on 09/06/2024.
Applicant’s Argument #3:
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that Claims 2-6, 15-17, 19 and 21 depend either directly or indirectly from independent claim 1 and are submitted to be patentable for at least the reasons supporting the patentability of their base claim 1. For at least the foregoing reasons submitted above, Applicant argues that Claims 7, 12- 14 and 20 depend either directly or indirectly from independent claim 1 and are submitted to be patentable for at least the reasons supporting the patentability of their base claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 7, 12-14 and 20 and allowance of the same.
Examiner’s Response #3:
Based on the above responses #1-#2, applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claim 1 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pechstein et al. (US20170160228A1) discloses a potentiometric sensor wherein the reference element 19 and potential-sensing element 16 are each connected to a measuring circuit 25 via a contact point 23, 24 arranged outside of the housing; the measuring circuit 25 is designed to detect a difference in potential between the measuring half-cell 12 and the reference half-cell 11 and output a measuring signal that represents the difference in potential and the measuring circuit 25 can be connected to a higher-level unit, such as a measuring transducer, to which it outputs the measuring signal [Para. 0052 and Fig. 1].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOMMER OSMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
