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 Status
Claims 1-19 are pending with claims 1-16 being examined. Claims 17-19 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 06/12/2026, along with the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The claim objection is moot.
As to the arguments and remarks, the Examiner has found applicants arguments persuasive and will be addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Castro et al. (US 5,841,021; hereinafter “De Castro”).
Regarding claim 1, De Castro teaches an ammonia sensor (De Castro; Col. 6 lines 37-46 “among the gases that can be testes is ammonia”) comprising:
at least one thermal indicator component independently selected from an electronic thermal sensor, an irreversible temperature indicator, and a heat-shrinkable film (De Castro; fig. 19A. 14” and Col. 22 lines 9-39);
an acid-functional porous sorbent is (De Castro; fig. 19A 16” Col. 10 lines 47-67 “the ion-conductive substrate can comprise acid functionality such as SO3H”) in thermal contact with the at least one thermal indicator component (De Castro; fig. 19A 14”); and
an acid having a boiling point above 120 °C and a pKa of no greater than 2.5, wherein the acid is impregnated in or covalently attached to the porous sorbent. De Castro teaches an acid SO3H which corresponds to an acid having ab oiling point above 120 °C and a pKa of no greater than 2.5.
Regarding claim 3, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 2 (see above), wherein the acid compound comprises sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, methanesulfonic acid, methanephosphonic acid, benzene sulfonic acid, toluene sulfonic acid, or a combination thereof, and wherein the acid moiety is selected from sulfonic acid (-SO3H) groups or phosphonic acid (-P03H2) groups.
The acid compound comprising sulfuric acid was discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 1 (see above), wherein the acid-functional porous sorbent comprises activated carbon, porous silica, porous organic polymer, or combinations thereof (De Castro; Col. 10 lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 16, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 1 (see above), wherein the acid-functional porous sorbent is adhered to the at least one thermal indicator component (De Castro; fig. 19A. 14”, 16”).
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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Castro et al. (US 5,841,021; hereinafter “De Castro”).
Regarding claim 14, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 1 (see above) to include acid compounds impregnated within the porous sorbent (see above).
De Castro does not explicitly to teach wherein the acid is present in an amount of 5 wt.% to 80 wt.%. based on the total weight of the acid-functional porous sorbent.
However, without some statement of criticality or showing of unexpected results, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been obvious to determine through mathematical experimentation an optimal concentration of the acid based on the total weight of the acid-functional porous sorbent.
Regarding claim 15, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 1 (see above) to include sulfuric acid (see above).
It is well known in the art that sulfuric acid contains two hydroxyl (-OH) and two OXO groups that can act as moieties which would allow the acid to attached to the porous sorbent.
De Castro does not explicitly teach wherein the acid is present in an amount of 0.5 mmole to 5.5 mmole of acid moieties per gram of acid-functional porous sorbent.
It would have been obvious to determine through mathematical experimentation an optimal concentration of the acid (sulfuric acid that contains to groups that can act as moieties) based on the total weight of the acid-functional porous sorbent.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Castro et al. (US 5,841,021; hereinafter “De Castro”) in view of Beiermann et al. (US 20200179903 A1; hereinafter “Beiermann” previous of record).
Regarding claim 2, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 1 (see above) to include an acid (see above).
De Castro fails to teach the acid is an acid compound impregnant or a covalently bonded acid moiety, wherein the acid compound comprises trichloroacetic acid, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, methanesulfonic acid, methanephosphonic acid, benzene sulfonic acid, toluene sulfonic acid, or a combination thereof, and wherein the acid moiety is selected from sulfonic acid (-SO3H) groups or phosphonic acid (- P03H2) groups.
However; Beiermann teaches the analogous art of a sorbent that provides filtration of ammonia (Beiermann; [0056] “sorbent that provides filtration of ammonia”) that includes an acid (Beiermann; [0078]), wherein the acid is an acid compound impregnant (Beiermann; [0078] “the porous material can be formed by mixing an aqueous metal silicate with sulfuric acid”), wherein the acid compound comprises sulfuric acid (Beiermann; [0078]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify De Castro’s acid to be an acid compound impregnant, wherein the acid compound comprises sulfuric acid as taught by Beiermann because Beiermann teaches a sorbent that provides filtration of ammonia (Beiermann; [0056] “sorbent that provides filtration of ammonia”) that includes an acid (Beiermann; [0078]), wherein the acid is an acid compound impregnant (Beiermann; [0078] “the porous material can be formed by mixing an aqueous metal silicate with sulfuric acid”), wherein the acid compound comprises sulfuric acid (Beiermann; [0078]).
The modification allows for the formation of the solid product (Beiermann; [0078]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Castro et al. (US 5,841,021; hereinafter “De Castro”) in view of in view of Hui (US 20020122744 A1; hereinafter “Hui” previous of record).
Regarding claim 4, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 1 (see above) to include an electronic thermal sensor (see above).
De Castro fails to teach the electronic thermal sensor is present and comprises at least one of a thermocouple, a resistor, a capacitor, an inductor, or an electronic circuit that changes when exposed to a specific minimum elevated temperature.
However, Hui teaches the analogous art of an apparatus for monitoring a gas (Hui; Title) that includes a sensor (Hui; [0023] “temperature probe 16 can be a thermistor or a temperature sensor”), wherein the sensor is an electronic thermal sensor and wherein the electronic thermal sensor is present and comprises at least one of a thermocouple (Hui; [0023] “temperature probe 16 is a thermocouple”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify De Castro’s electronic thermal sensor to be present and comprises at least one of a thermocouple as taught by Hui because Hui teaches an apparatus for monitoring a gas (Hui; Title) that includes a sensor (Hui; [0023] “temperature probe 16 can be a thermistor or a temperature sensor”), wherein the sensor is an electronic thermal sensor and wherein the electronic thermal sensor is present and comprises at least one of a thermocouple (Hui; [0023] “temperature probe 16 is a thermocouple”).
The modification allows for the thermocouple to produce a temperature-dependent voltage (Hui; [0023]).
Regarding claim 5, De Castro Rakow teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 4 (see above), wherein the electronic thermal sensor is present and comprises a thermocouple. The limitation was discussed in claim 4 above.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Castro et al. (US 5,841,021; hereinafter “De Castro”) in view of in view of Rakow et al (US 20080063575 A1; hereinafter “Rakow” previous of record), further in view of Beiermann et al. (US 20200179903 A1; hereinafter “Beiermann” previous of record) and Hui (US 20020122744 A1; hereinafter “Hui” previous of record).
Regarding claim 6, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 3 (see above) to include an electronic thermal sensor that is present (see above).
De Castro fails to teach wherein the electronic thermal sensor comprises an electronic circuit that that changes when exposed to a specific minimum elevated temperature.
However, Hui teaches the analogous art of an apparatus for monitoring a gas (Hui; Title) that includes a sensor (Hui; [0023] “temperature probe 16 can be a thermistor or a temperature sensor”) wherein the electronic thermal sensor is present and comprises an electronic circuit (Hui; [0052] “thermocouple junctions require a sensing circuit”) that changes when exposed to a specific minimum elevated temperature (Hui; [0052] “to monitor the vapor”, implying the electronic circuit connected to the probe 16 (fig. 3A. 16) may exhibit changes in temperature).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify De Castro’s electronic thermal sensor to include an electronic circuit that that changes when exposed to a specific minimum elevated temperature as taught by Hui because Hui teaches an apparatus for monitoring a gas (Hui; Title) that includes a sensor (Hui; [0023] “temperature probe 16 can be a thermistor or a temperature sensor”) wherein the electronic thermal sensor is present and comprises an electronic circuit (Hui; [0052] “thermocouple junctions require a sensing circuit”) that changes when exposed to a specific minimum elevated temperature (Hui; [0052] “to monitor the vapor”, implying the electronic circuit connected to the probe 16 (fig. 3A. 16) may exhibit changes in temperature).
The modification allows to convert temperature reading into an electrical signal (Hui; [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 3 (see above) to include an electronic thermal sensor (see above).
De Castro fails to teach wherein the electronic thermal sensor is present and comprises at least one of a resistor, a capacitor, or an inductor.
However, Hui teaches the analogous art of an apparatus for monitoring a gas (Hui; Title) that includes a sensor (Hui; [0023] “temperature probe 16 can be a thermistor or a temperature sensor”) wherein the electronic thermal sensor is present and comprises at least one of a resistor (Hui; [0023] “temperature probe 16 can be a resistance”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify De Castro’s electronic thermal sensor to wherein the electronic thermal sensor is present and comprises at least one of a resistor as taught by Hui because Hui teaches an apparatus for monitoring a gas (Hui; Title) that includes a sensor (Hui; [0023] “temperature probe 16 can be a thermistor or a temperature sensor”) wherein the electronic thermal sensor is present and comprises at least one of a resistor, a capacitor, or an inductor (Hui; [0023] “temperature probe 16 can be a resistance”).
The modification allows the sensor to measure temperature changes (Hui; [0023]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Castro et al. (US 5,841,021 hereinafter “De Castro”) in view of in view of Rakow et al (US 20080063575 A1; hereinafter “Rakow” previous of record), further in view of Beiermann et al. (US 20200179903 A1; hereinafter “Beiermann” previous of record) and Oda (US 20190302018 A1; hereinafter “Oda”).
Regarding claim 7, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 3 (see above) to include an electronic thermal sensor (see above).
De Castro fails to teach the electronic thermal sensor comprises an RFID tag.
However, Oda teaches the analogous art of an apparatus that includes a sensor (Oda; fig. 1. 10, and [0007]) that includes a dye plate with thermosensitive material (Oda; fig. 1. 30, and [0041]) wherein when the sensor comprises an RFID tag (Oda; fig. 1. 200).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify modified De Castro’s electronic thermal sensor wherein the electronic thermal sensor comprises an RFID tag as taught by Oda because Oda teaches an apparatus that includes a sensor (Oda; fig. 1. 10, and [0007]) that includes a dye plate with thermosensitive material (Oda; fig. 1. 30, and [0041])
The modification allows to monitor the sensor data remotely (Oda; [0045]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Castro et al. (US 5,841,021 hereinafter “De Castro”) in view of in view of Petric (Ammonia Concentration Monitoring Using Arduino Platform; hereinafter “Petric” previous of record).
Regarding claim 9, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 1 (see above) to include an electronic thermal sensor (see above).
De Castro fails to teach the electronic thermal sensor detects ammonia at a concentration of 300 parts per million (ppm) or greater in a gas.
However, Petric teaches the analogous art of a sensor (Petric; page 23, section 2.1, line MQ-137 sensor) which determines ammonia in the air (Petric; pages 23-24, section 2.2 lines 1-5 “sensor determines ammonia concentration in the air”), and which detects ammonia at a concentration of 300 parts per million (ppm) or greater in a gas (Petric; page 25, section 3, line 4).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify De Castro’s electronic thermal sensor to detect ammonia at a concentration of 300 parts per million (ppm) or greater in a gas as taught by Petric because Petric teaches a sensor (Petric; page 23, section 2.1, line MQ-137 sensor) which determines ammonia in the air (Petric; pages 23-24, section 2.2 lines 1-5 “sensor determines ammonia concentration in the air”), and which detects ammonia at a concentration of 300 parts per million (ppm) or greater in a gas (Petric; page 25, section 3, line 4).
The modification allows to measurer ammonia at critical levels.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Castro et al. (US 5,841,021; hereinafter “De Castro”) in view of in view of Rakow et al (US 20080063575 A1; hereinafter “Rakow” previous of record),
Regarding claim 10, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 1 (see above).
De Castro fails to teach the ammonia sensor wherein the heat-shrinkable film is present.
However, Rakow teaches the analogous art of a sensor (Rakow; [0004]) that includes a heat-shrinkable film (Rakow; Abstract), wherein the heat-shrinkable film is present (Rakow; Abstract “thin-film multilayer whose optical thickness changes in presence of vapor”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify De Castro’s ammonia sensor to include a heat shrinkable film, wherein the heat-shrinkable film is present as taught by Rakow because Rakow teaches a sensor (Rakow; [0004]) that includes a heat-shrinkable film (Rakow; Abstract), wherein the heat-shrinkable film is present (Rakow; Abstract “thin-film multilayer whose optical thickness changes in presence of vapor”).
The modification allows the heat shrinkable film to be used as an optical indicator (Rakow; Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 1 (see above) to include a heat-shrinkable film (see above).
De Castro fails to teach heat-shrinkable film is present.
However, Rakow teaches the analogous art of a sensor (Rakow; [0004]) that includes a heat-shrinkable film (Rakow; Abstract), wherein the heat-shrinkable film is present (Rakow; Abstract “thin-film multilayer whose optical thickness changes in presence of vapor”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify De Castro’s ammonia sensor to include a heat shrinkable film, wherein the heat-shrinkable film is present as taught by Rakow because Rakow teaches a sensor (Rakow; [0004]) that includes a heat-shrinkable film (Rakow; Abstract), wherein the heat-shrinkable film is present (Rakow; Abstract “thin-film multilayer whose optical thickness changes in presence of vapor”).
The modification allows the heat shrinkable film to be used as an optical indicator (Rakow; Abstract).
De Castro or Rakow do not teach the acid- functional porous sorbent is present in an amount of 10 gsm to 1000 gsm of an area of the sensor on which the sorbent is disposed.
However, without some statement of criticality or showing of unexpected results, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been obvious to have the heat-shrinkable film present and the acid-functional porous sorbent present in an amount of 10 gsm to 1000 gsm of an area of the sensor on which the sorbent is disposed in order to provide a visible optical thickness changes in presence of vapor.
Claim 11 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Castro et al. (US 5,841,021 hereinafter “De Castro”) in view of Oda (US 20190302018 A1; hereinafter “Oda” previous of record).
Regarding claim 11, De Castro teaches the ammonia sensor of claim 1 (see above) to include a thermal indicator (see above).
De Castro fails to teach the irreversible temperature indicator is present and comprises a thermochromic dye.
However, Oda teaches the analogous art of an apparatus that includes a sensor (Oda; [0007]) that includes a dye and an irreversible thermosensitive material (Oda; fig. 1. 30) wherein the thermosensitive material includes a dye (Oda; [0041] “thermosensitive material includes a thermochromic dye”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify De Castro’s thermal indicator wherein the irreversible temperature indicator is present and comprises a thermochromic dye as taught by Oda because Oda teaches an apparatus that includes a sensor (Oda; [0007]) that includes a dye and an irreversible thermosensitive material (Oda; fig. 1. 30) wherein the thermosensitive material includes a dye (Oda; [0041] “thermosensitive material includes a thermochromic dye”).
The modification allows to monitor temperature and provide visual evidence of attained temperature (Oda; [0041]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 12 and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7 and 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,951,226 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 1 of USP 11,951,226 B2 is drawn to an ethylene oxide sterilization sensor comprising: a heat-shrinkable film; an acid-functional porous sorbent in thermal contact with the heat-shrinkable film; and an acid having a boiling point above 120° C. and a pKa of no greater than 2.5, wherein the acid is impregnated in or covalently attached to the porous sorbent.
Regarding instant claim 2, claims 1, 5 and 9 of USP 11,951,226 B2 are drawn to
claim 5. a sterilization sensor wherein the acid comprises acid moieties covalently attached to the porous sorbent.
Claim 6. a sterilization sensor wherein the acid comprises covalently attached acid moieties selected from sulfonic acid (—SO.sub.3H) groups and phosphonic acid (—PO.sub.3H.sub.2) groups.
Claim 9. a sterilization sensor wherein the acid is selected from acid compounds comprising sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, methanesulfonic acid, methanephosphonic acid, benzene sulfonic acid, toluene sulfonic acid, or a combination thereof.
Regarding instant claim 3, claim 6 of USP 11,951,226 B2 is drawn to a sterilization sensor wherein the acid comprises covalently attached acid moieties selected from sulfonic acid (—SO.sub.3H) groups and phosphonic acid (—PO.sub.3H.sub.2) groups.
Regarding instant claim 12, claim 4 of USP 11,951,226 B2 is drawn to a sterilization sensor wherein the acid-functional porous sorbent comprises activated carbon, porous silica, zeolites, porous organic polymer, or combinations thereof.
Regarding instant claim 14, claim 10 of USP 11,951,226 B2 is drawn to
a sterilization sensor wherein the acid is present in an amount of 5 wt-% to 80 wt-%, based on the total weight of the acid-functional porous sorbent.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 7 of USP 11,951,226 B2 is drawn to a sterilization sensor of claim 5 wherein the acid is present in an amount of 0.2 mmole to 5.5 mmole of acid moieties per gram of acid-functional porous sorbent.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7 and 9-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,611,477 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 1 of USP 12,611,477 B2 is drawn to An ethylene oxide sterilization sensor comprising: at least one thermal indicator component independently selected from an electronic thermal sensor, an irreversible temperature indicator, or a heat-shrinkable film; an acid-functional porous sorbent or an acid-functional nonwoven fibrous substrate in thermal contact with the at least one thermal indicator component; and an acid having a boiling point above 120° C. and a pKa of no greater than 2.5, wherein the acid comprises acid moieties covalently attached to the porous sorbent or to the nonwoven fibrous substrate; with the proviso that the sensor comprises at least one of the electronic thermal sensor, the irreversible temperature indicator, or the acid-functional nonwoven fibrous substrate.
Regarding instant claim 3, claim 9 of USP 12,611,477 B2 is drawn to a sterilization sensor, wherein the acid compounds comprise sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, methanesulfonic acid, methanephosphonic acid, benzene sulfonic acid, toluene sulfonic acid, or a combination thereof.
Regarding instant claim 4, claim 2 of USP 12,611,477 B2 is drawn to a sterilization sensor, wherein the electronic thermal sensor is present and comprises at least one of a thermocouple, a resistor, a capacitor, an inductor, or an electronic circuit that changes when exposed to a specific minimum elevated temperature.
Regarding instant claim 7, claim 3 of USP 12,611,477 B2 is drawn to a sterilization sensor, wherein the electronic thermal sensor comprises an RFID tag.
Regarding instant claim 9, claim 4 of USP 12,611,477 B2 is drawn to a sterilization sensor of claim 1, which detects ethylene oxide at a concentration of 3,000 parts per million (ppm) or greater in a gas.
Regarding instant claim 10, claim 5 of USP 12,611,477 B2 is drawn to a sterilization sensor, wherein the heat-shrinkable film is present.
Regarding instant claim 11, claim 6 of USP 12,611,477 B2 is drawn to a sterilization sensor, wherein the irreversible temperature indicator is present and comprises a thermochromic dye.
Regarding instant claim 12, claim 7 of USP 12,611,477 B2 is drawn to a sterilization sensor, wherein the acid-functional porous sorbent is present and comprises activated carbon, porous silica, zeolites, porous organic polymer, or combinations thereof.
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 10 of USP 12,611,477 B2 is drawn to a sterilization sensor, wherein the acid-functional porous sorbent is present in an amount of 10 grams per square meter (gsm) to 1000 gsm of an area of the ethylene oxide sterilization sensor.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 12 of USP 12,611,477 B2 is drawn to a sterilization sensor, wherein the acid comprises the acid moieties covalently attached to the nonwoven fibrous substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/12/2026 with respect to claims 1-3, 10 and 12-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
