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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 28, 2026 has been entered.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (article from Food Chemistry, vol. 245, October 14, 2017, pages 337-345, submitted in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 19, 2024).
With regards to claim 1, Wang et al teach of an assay for the rapid determination of zinc in an aqueous sample such as drinking water (see the title and abstract of Wang et al). The method comprises measuring an intensity of absorbance Ab of a standard solution containing 4 µg mL-1 of zinc combined with a colorimetric reagent comprising 2-(5-bromo-2-pyridylazo)-5-[N-propyl-N-(3-sulfopropyl)aminophenol (5-Br-PAPS) to form a zinc-PAPS complex, adding an iron chelating agent comprising a deferoxamine mesylate salt to an aqueous test sample solution containing zinc, iron and other ions along with the colorimetric reagent comprising 5-Br-PAPS in order to chelate iron in the aqueous test sample, measuring an intensity of absorbance At of the iron chelated test sample, measuring an amount of zinc in the aqueous test sample by measuring a change in the intensity of the absorbance At as compared to the absorbance Ab of the standard solution containing zinc and the 5-Br-PAPS reagent without the iron chelating agent, and correlating the change in absorbance intensity to an amount of zinc in the aqueous test sample. Wang et al teach that the amount of iron in the aqueous test sample that is chelated by the iron chelating agent (i.e. deferoxamine mesylate salt) is between 5-1000 µg/ml-1, which is the same as between 5-1000 mg/L. See the third full paragraph in section 3.4 of Wang et al where the aqueous test sample containing zinc that is analyzed in the method is described as also containing between 5-1000 µg/ml-1 of iron and other ions. It is noted that a range of between 5-1000 µg/ml-1 of iron in the aqueous test sample, which is the same as between 5-1000 mg/L, meets the limitation of “at least 1.0 milligram per liter” now recited in instant claim 1 since this range includes 1.0 mg/L and anything greater than 1.0 mg/L. See the abstract and sections 2.3-2.5, 3.4 and 4 of Wang et al.
With regards to claim 7, Wang et al teach that the change in intensity of the absorbance is measured using spectrophotometric methods. See section 2.2 and Figures 1B and 1C in Wang et al.
With regards to claim 8, Wang et al teach that the change in intensity of absorbance is measured using colorimetric methods. See the title and the last paragraph in section 1. of Wang et al.
With regards to claim 10, Wang et al teach that the iron chelating agent is introduced into the aqueous sample in the form of a solution. See section 2.3 in Wang et al where a stock solution of deferoxamine mesylate salt is prepared, and then used to prepare a solution A containing both the deferoxamine mesylate salt and the 5-Br-PAPS colorimetric reagent added to the aqueous sample.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (article from Food Chemistry, vol. 245, October 14, 2017, pages 337-345, submitted in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 19, 2024). For a teaching of Wang et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action.
With regards to claim 4, Wang et al fail to specifically teach that a concentration of the iron chelating reagent used in the method is adjusted to the amount of iron in the aqueous sample (i.e. drinking water). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust a concentration of the iron chelating reagent used in the method taught by Wang et al to an amount of iron in the aqueous sample because Wang et al teach that iron in a sample forms a 1:1 molar ratio with deferoxamine with high stability (see the second paragraph in section 3.4 of Wang et al), and one of ordinary skill in the art would desire the chelate all of the iron present in the aqueous sample with deferoxamine in a molar ratio of 1:1 in the method taught by Wang et al so as to prevent its interference in the detection of zinc in the sample.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (article from Food Chemistry, vol. 245, October 14, 2017, pages 337-345, submitted in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 19, 2024) in view of Tunheim et al (US 2014/0061449, submitted in the previous Office actions). For a teaching of Wang et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action.
With regards to claim 9, Wang et al fail to teach that the aqueous sample of drinking water analyzed in the method also contains monochloramine as an additional interferant.
Tunheim et al teach that drinking water contains various contaminants including iron, zinc and chloramines therein. See paragraph 0027 in Tunheim et al.
Based upon a combination of Wang et al and Tunheim et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to realize that the drinking water analyzed in the method taught by Wang et al also contains monochloramine as an additional interferant therein because Tunheim et al teach that chloramines are usually present in drinking water samples as contaminants.
Claim(s) 11, 14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (article from Food Chemistry, vol. 245, October 14, 2017, pages 337-345, submitted in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 19, 2024) in view of Greenawalt et al (US 2022/0082493). For a teaching of Wang et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action.
With regards to claims 11, 14 and 17-18, Wang et al fail to teach that the method for detecting zinc in an aqueous sample can be performed automatically with a measurement device comprising a prepackaged module holding the iron chelating agent, a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to perform the steps of the method.
Greenawalt teaches of a method and a measurement device for measuring zinc in an aqueous solution (see the abstract and paragraphs 0003-0004 in Greenwalt) using an indicator solution comprising a chelating agent for zinc. The measurement device comprises prepackaged modules containing the reagents used in the method, including the zinc chelating agent, a processor, and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to perform the steps of the method to detect zinc in an aqueous sample. See paragraphs 0004, 0024, 0030, 0048, 0051 and claim 11 in Greenawalt et al.
Based upon the combination of Wang et al and Greenawalt et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method for detecting zinc in an aqueous sample taught by Wang et al with a measurement device comprising a prepackaged module holding the iron chelating agent, a processor, and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to perform the steps of the method because Greenawalt et al teach that it is advantageous to perform methods for detecting zinc in aqueous samples using prepackaged modules containing the reagents required to perform the method, a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to perform the steps of the method since this type of measurement device allows the method to be performed automatically without any manual user intervention, and the provision of analytical reagents in prepackaged modules allows an analytical method to be performed quickly without any sample preparation.
With regards to claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust a concentration of the iron chelating reagent used in the method taught by Wang et al to an amount of iron in the aqueous test sample because Wang et al teach that iron in a sample forms a 1:1 molar ratio with deferoxamine with high stability (see the second paragraph in section 3.4 of Wang et al), and one of ordinary skill in the art would desire to chelate all of the iron present in the aqueous test sample with deferoxamine in a molar ratio of 1:1 in the method taught by Wang et al so as to prevent its interference in the detection of zinc in the sample.
With regards to claim 17, Wang et al teach that the change in intensity of the absorbance is measured using spectrophotometric methods. See section 2.2 and Figures 1B and 1C in Wang et al.
With regards to claim 18, Wang et al teach that the change in intensity of absorbance is measured using colorimetric methods. See the title and the last paragraph in section 1. of Wang et al.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (article from Food Chemistry, vol. 245, October 14, 2017, pages 337-345, submitted in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 19, 2024) in view of Greenawalt et al (US 2022/0082493), as applied to claims 11, 14 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Tunheim et al (US 2014/0061449, submitted in the previous Office actions). For a teaching of Wang et al, Greenawalt et al and Tunheim et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action.
With regards to claim 19, the combination of Wang et al and Greenawalt et al fails to teach that the aqueous sample of drinking water analyzed in the method also contains monochloramine as an additional interferant. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to realize that the drinking water analyzed in the method taught by Wang et al also contains monochloramine as an additional interferant therein because Tunheim et al teach that chloramines are usually present in drinking water samples as contaminants.
With regards to claim 20, Wang et al fail to teach that the deferoxamine mesylate salt iron chelating agent is present in a prepackaged module, and that the aqueous sample of drinking water analyzed in the method also contains monochloramine as an additional interferant. However, based upon a combination of Wang et al, Greenawalt et al and Tunheim et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method for detecting zinc in an aqueous sample taught by Wang et al with a measurement device comprising a prepackaged module holding the iron chelating agent and to realize that the drinking water analyzed in the method taught by Wang et al also contains monochloramine as an additional interferant therein because Greenawalt et al teach that it is advantageous to perform methods for detecting zinc in aqueous samples using prepackaged modules containing the reagents required to perform the method (see paragraphs 0024 and 0030 in Greenawalt et al), and Tunheim et al teach that chloramines are usually present in drinking water samples as contaminants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) in the last Office action mailed on May 29, 2026 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments made to the claims. In addition, the amended claims are now rejected under both 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al, and under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over various combinations of Wang et al, Tunheim et al and Greenawalt et al (US 2022/0082493) for the reasons set forth above, and as necessitated by the amendments made to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAUREEN M WALLENHORST whose telephone number is (571)272-1266. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MAUREEN WALLENHORST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797 September 24, 2026
