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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 04/01/2026.
Status of Rejections
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments/remarks.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 4-5 is/are obviated by applicant' s cancellation.
The rejection of claim(s) 3 and 6-7 under 35 USC 112(b) is/are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
All other previous rejections are maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, lines 1-2, “is chosen in the group comprising polypyrrole” should read something like “comprises polypyrrole”, as there is no longer a group of multiple elements to be chosen from.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said electrical connection means” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of an “electrical connection means”. Instead, line 9 of the claim introduces the limitation of “an electrical connector”. For examination purposes, these have been interpreted to refer to the same limitation. This is similarly applied to the later recitation of “the electrical connection means” in lines 2-3 of claim 7.
Claims 6-8 are indefinite as they depend upon now cancelled claim 4. For examination purposes, they are interpreted to depend on claim 1, which has been amended to incorporate the limitations of the now cancelled claim.
Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gummow et al. (U.S. 2019/0368054) in view of Bychkova et al. (U.S. 2017/0261461), and further in view of Kasahara et al. (GB 2025056 A).
Regarding claim 1, Gummow teaches a pH sensor device, intended to be inserted into the ground in order to be in contact with a region containing a fluid from the ground, for which fluid the pH is desired to be known (see e.g. Fig. 3, probe 40 buried in soil 26 and capable of measuring pH of said soil; Paragraph 0046, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0055), comprising:
a pH sensor comprising a surface in contact with said region containing a fluid when the device is inserted into the ground (see e.g. Figs. 4-5, conductive coupon 60 made of a material exhibiting potential-pH behavior with a surface exposed to exterior of probe 40; Paragraph 0048, lines 1-6),
a metal element having a surface configured to be in contact with the region containing the fluid when the device is inserted into the ground (see e.g. Figs. 4-5, steel electrode 54 fit into the end of probe 40 and exposed to the exterior; Paragraph 0047, lines 5-9),
an electrical connector connected at least to the metal element and configured to receive a cathodic-protection electrical potential for the metal element (see e.g. Figs. 3-5, wire 74 connected to steel electrode 54 to receive cathodic protection current/potential; Paragraph 0050, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0054, lines 6-9),
a body provided with at least a first opening configured to allow, when the device is inserted into the ground, the fluid contained in said region to be in contact with said surface of the pH sensor and with said surface of the metal element (see e.g. Figs. 4-5, body 52 with first end at which steel electrode 54 and conductive coupon 60 are exposed; Paragraph 0047, lines 1-6, and Paragraph 0048, lines 1-3), and at least one second opening configured to receive said electrical connector (see e.g. Figs. 4-5, second end of body 52 with plug 58 through which first wire 74 extends; Paragraph 0047, lines 11-14, and Paragraph 0050, lines 5-8)..
Gummow does not explicitly teach the surface of the pH sensor comprising a polymer capable of attracting protons and arranged to be in contact with said region containing a fluid when the device is inserted into the ground, but does teach it generally comprising a conductive material that exhibits potential-pH behavior that is insensitive to oxygen and being fabricated of materials such as antimony, tungsten, alloys thereof and other suitable materials (see e.g. Paragraph 0048, lines 3-9).
Bychkova teaches a pH sensor (see e.g. Abstract) comprising an active region including a reactive layer of a material which exhibits changes in electrical potential in response to contact with hydrogen ions to determine pH (see e.g. Fig. 2, reactive layer 216 of sensing window 211 providing active region; Paragraph 0037), this reactive layer being covered by an outer conductive layer comprising a polymer that selectively alloys hydrogen ions to pass from the external environment, i.e. is capable of attracting protons (see e.g. Fig. 2, conductive layer 217 provided on the outer side of reactive layer 216; Paragraph 0038, lines 1-12), thereby isolating the reactive layer from the external environment and allowing it to maintain the electric potential necessary for accurate pH measurements and improving the shelf-life of the pH sensor as a whole (see e.g. Paragraph 0038, lines 20-24).
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 the pH sensor of Gummow to comprise a layer of conductive polymer material capable of attracting protons at its exterior surface exposed to the environment, i.e. in contact with the region containing the fluid, as taught by Bychkova to isolate the reactive material exhibiting potential-pH behavior from the external environment and allow it to maintain the electric potential necessary for accurate pH measurements and improve the shelf-life of the pH sensor as a whole.
Modified Gummow does not teach said surface comprising a polymer material and said surface of the metal element being arranged recessed from an outer surface of the body where the openings are formed, but does teach the surface comprising a polymer material being embedded in and flush with the surface of the metal element (see e.g. Gummow Figs. 4-5, conductive coupon 60 accommodated in and flush with steel electrode 54; Paragraph 0048, lines 9-12) as well as the metal element being used to simulate a coating defect on a steel structure (see e.g. Gummow Paragraph 0047, lines 6-10).
Kasahara teaches a system for evaluating corrosive activity at a buried pipeline under cathodic protection (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a probe including a metal material that may embedded in, i.e. housed in, a plastic material and provided on a surface with a cover of the plastic material of the same thickness of a coating on the pipeline, i.e. recessed therein, to be exposed through a window of a specific area therethrough (see e.g. Figs. 2-3, probe 10 with probe material 10’ of same material as metal pipe 1 embedded in plastic resub 10’’’ with cover 10’ providing window 10a; Page 2, lines 47-48 and 51-57), thereby better simulating a break or defect of the same dimension in a coating of the pipeline and providing a reasonable assessment of the electrochemical state or corrosive activity at such a defect (see e.g. Page 2, lines 48-51 and 59-64, and Page 3, lines 23-32).
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 the body of modified Gummow to comprise a cover of the same thickness of a coating on the protected metal structure provided forming an exposed window over the surface of the metal element, thereby recessing it and the flush embedded surface comprising the polymer material, as taught by Kasahara to better simulate a defect in the coating of the metal structure and provide a reasonable assessment of the electrochemical state or corrosive activity at such a defect.
Regarding claim 2, Gummow as modified by Bychkova teaches the polymer containing one or more amino groups (see e.g. Bychkova Paragraph 0038, lines 5-9, and Paragraph 0068, lines 6-7, conductive layer comprising amino-containing polymers such as polyanilines, polycarbazoles, polyindoles and polydiaminobenzene).
Regarding claim 7, modified Gummow teaches second means for maintaining a sealing arranged at the interface between, on the one hand, the electrical connection means and, on the other hand, the body, in order to prevent the fluid contained in said region from penetrating inside the body (see e.g. Gummow Fig. 5, sealed fitting 82 provided to seal first wire 74 into plug 58 sealing body 52; Paragraph 0047, lines 11-14, and Paragraph 0050, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 9, modified Gummow teaches said surface comprising a polymer material and said surface of the metal element being spaced apart by a strip having a thickness between 1 and 2 millimeters (see e.g. Gummow Fig. 4, conductive coupon 60 and steel electrode 54 separated by insulating bushing 64 at distance of 1 to 2 mm, Paragraph 0048, lines 9-20), overlapping the claimed range of the present invention.
MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 10, modified Gummow teaches said surface of the metal element having an annular shape (see e.g. Gummow Fig. 4, disc shaped steel electrode 54 with central aperture 56, i.e. having an annular shape; Paragraph 0047, lines 5-6 and 10-11) and said surface comprising a polymer material being arranged so as to be surrounded by said surface of the metal element (see e.g. Gummow Fig. 4, conductive coupon 60 set in and surrounded by adjacent steel electrode 54; Paragraph 0048, lines 1-2).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gummow, Bychkova and Kasahara, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20190083120 A, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 3, modified Gummow teaches all the elements of the device of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Gummow does not explicitly teach the polymer comprising polypyrrole. Bychkova does however teach the polymer generally comprising any conductive semi-permeable non-pH sensitive material known in the art such as polyanilines (see e.g. Bychkova Paragraph 0038, lines 5-9).
Lee teaches a pH sensor device (see e.g. Paragraphs 0001 and 0055) comprising a working electrode reactive to hydrogen ions that includes a conductive layer formed on an underlying metal layer (see e.g. Paragraph 0156), wherein the conductive layer may comprise a conductive polymer such as polypyrrole, polyaniline and combinations thereof (see e.g. Paragraph 0157).
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 the polymer material of modified Gummow to comprise polypyrrole as taught by Lee as an alternate or additional suitable conductive polymer material for use as an outer layer of a pH sensor device. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding claim 14, modified Gummow teaches all the elements of the device of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Gummow does not explicitly teach the polymer comprising poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene). Bychkova does however teach the polymer comprising polythiophenes as well as generally comprising any conductive semi-permeable non-pH sensitive material known in the art such as polyanilines (see e.g. Bychkova Paragraph 0038, lines 5-9).
Lee teaches a pH sensor device (see e.g. Paragraphs 0001 and 0055) comprising a working electrode reactive to hydrogen ions that includes a conductive layer formed on an underlying metal layer (see e.g. Paragraph 0156), wherein the conductive layer may comprise a conductive polymer such as polythiophenes including poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), polyaniline and combinations thereof (see e.g. Paragraph 0157).
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 the polymer material of modified Gummow to comprise poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) as taught by Lee as a specific polythiophene and an alternate or additional suitable conductive polymer material for use as an outer layer of a pH sensor device. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gummow, Bychkova and Kasahara, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du et al. (CN 102912356 A, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 6, modified Gummow teaches all the elements of the device of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Gummow does not explicitly teach first means for maintaining a sealing arranged at the interface between, on the one hand, said surface comprising a polymer material and said surface of the metal element and, on the other hand, the body, in order to prevent the fluid contained in said region from penetrating inside the body. Gummow does however teach the surface of the metal element being fitted into the body (see e.g. Gummow Figs. 4-5, steel electrode fitted into end of body 52; Paragraph 0047, lines 5-6) and the surface comprising a polymer material being embedded in the surface of the metal element (see e.g. Gummow Figs. 4-5, conductive coupon 60 accommodated in steel electrode 54; Paragraph 0048, lines 9-12).
Du traches a cathodic protection test probe (see e.g. Paragraph 0002) comprising a test sample mounted at the bottom of a housing, wherein sealing between the test sample and housing is ensured by employing an interference fit seal (see e.g. Paragraph 0015).
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 the device of modified Gummow to comprise an interference fit seal formed between the surface comprising the metal element, and therefore the embedded surface comprising the polymer, and the body as taught by Du to ensure sealing between the fitted elements of the device.
Regarding claim 11, modified Gummow teaches all the elements of the device of claim 1 as stated above. Gummow as modified by Bychkova further teaches said surface comprising a polymer material having an area of 3e-8 cm2 to 0.3 cm2 (see e.g. Bychkova Paragraph 0039, lines 5-7, reactive layer exposed area 3 µm2 to 30 mm2), overlapping the claimed range of the present invention (see MPEP § 2144.05 I as cited above).
Modified Gummow does not explicitly teach said surface of the metal element having an area greater than or equal to at least 1 cm2, but does teach said surface of the metal element having an area commensurate with the area of a typical coating defect on a protected steel structure (see e.g. Gummow Paragraph 0047, lines 6-10).
Du traches a cathodic protection test probe (see e.g. Paragraph 0002) comprising a metal test piece used to simulate a defect in a covering layer of a pipeline (see e.g. Paragraph 0005, lines 13-15, Paragraph 0030, lines 1-2), wherein the test piece may have an exposed area of 1 cm2 (see e.g. Paragraph 0016).
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 the surface of the metal element of modified Gummow to have an area of 1 cm2 as taught by Du as a suitable exposed area for a metal test piece simulating a defect in a coating on a cathodically protected metal structure. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gummow, Bychkova and Kasahara, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malver et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,623,616).
Regarding claim 8, modified Gummow teaches all the elements of the device of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Gummow does not explicitly teach the pH sensor and/or the metal element being detachable from the body.
Malver teaches a system for monitoring environmental factors such as pH influencing corrosion (see e.g. Abstract) comprising one or more sensors that are removable from a sensor module housing such that one or more additional sensors can be substituted therefor, allowing the system to be easily modified for monitoring different types of materials and objects (see e.g. Col. 5, lines 7-13, and Claim 26).
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 the pH sensor and/or the metal element of modified Gummow to be removable, i.e. detachable, from the body as taught by Malver to allow them to be substituted with one or more additional sensors to easily modify the device for monitoring different types of materials and objects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the modification of Gummow with Kasahara would only apply to the defect-simulating metal element, and would not apply to the sensing surface. This is not considered persuasive. Gummow teaches the surface comprising a polymer material being embedded in and flush with the surface of the metal element (see e.g. Gummow Figs. 4-5, conductive coupon 60 accommodated in and flush with steel electrode 54; Paragraph 0048, lines 9-12), and specifically describes the desire for the electrolytic environment in the vicinity of both surfaces to mimic the electrolytic environment at the coating defect (see e.g. Gummow Paragraph 0054, lines 10-16). Therefore, in the modification with Kasahara providing a cover of a certain thickness with an exposed window over the metal element (see e.g. Kasahara Figs. 2-3, probe 10 with probe material 10’ of same material as metal pipe 1 embedded in plastic resub 10’’’ with cover 10’ providing window 10a; Page 2, lines 47-48 and 51-57), thereby recessing it, the flush sensing surface would simultaneously be recessed.
Conclusion
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 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 MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Luan Van can be reached at (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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights