DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2 Applicant's arguments regarding prior art filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive. Applicant's arguments regarding claims 18-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The new rejection does rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection. Examiner is relying on a new interpretation on the prior reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 18-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " at least one polarization module configured to
polarize at least one measurement electrode at an alternating electrical potential (Vg), called working potential, different from a ground potential (M);".
In Claim 18 line 4 recites “alternating electrical working potential “ and in line 18 recites “working alternating electrical potential” In line 22 recites “working alternating electrical potential ”. Please use consistent terms within claim language.
The use of three terms “alternating electrical potential (Vg),” working potential ,
and “working alternating electrical potential Vg” creates confusion as to claim scope. The claim should use a single term to refer to this value.
It is not clear how the structure of claim 18 causes the at least one measurement electrode to be polarized as claimed.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " an alternating potential difference equal to
said working alternating electrical potential (Vg) at said same working frequency ".
It is not clear how the structure of claim 18 induces said electrical conductor, and alternating potential difference.
It is unclear how the capacitive detection device (Fig.3 item 300) as
illustrated the measurement electronics (Fig.3 item 312) are placed downstream of the polarization module (Fig.3 item 306) between the polarization module provide working potential, different from a ground potential (M) at a working frequency.
Applicant needs to particularly define the structure related to working frequency
and measurement electronics the polarization module,
Claim 26 recites the limitation “polarization module” which should include at
least one.
Claims 19-34 are also rejected because it depends on claim 18.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NIEDERNDORFER et al. (EP 2683084 A2), Figures 1, and CHRISTIAN et al. (WO 2022090499 A1),sow the polarization module, measurement electrode, and toroidal element but no prior art rejection is provided.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BRENT J ANDREWS whose telephone number is (571)272-6101. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-5pm.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/BRENT J ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/NEEL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights