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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 6, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 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.
On the last two lines of claim 1, the phrase “wherein the measuring a change in intensity is from an identical volume of sample” is indefinite since it is not clear what the “identical volume of sample” is identical to. Does the phrase “an identical volume of the sample” refer to the same volume of the same sample used to measure an absorbance prior to adding the iron chelating agent to the sample? If so, it is suggested to amend independent claims 1, 11 and 20 to recite separate steps of measuring an absorbance of a same volume of sample both before and after adding the iron chelating agent, and then a step of measuring a change in intensity of absorbance in the same volume of sample between the two separate absorbance measurements. See this same problem on the last two lines of claim 11 and on lines 8-9 of claim 20.
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) 1-2, 5-8, 10 and 20 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 claims 1-2 and 20, Wang et al teach of a colorimetric 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 absorbance of an aqueous sample such as drinking water comprising zinc ions and other interfering ions such as iron and a colorimetric reagent comprising 2-(5-bromo-2-pyridylazo)-5-[N-propyl-N-(3-sulfopropyl)aminophenol (5-Br-PAPS) (see Figure 4A and its description in Wang et al), adding a working solution to the aqueous sample, wherein the working solution contains both an iron chelating reagent in order to mask the interference from iron in the detection of zinc in the sample and the 5-Br-PAPS colorimetric reagent, wherein the iron chelating agent comprises a deferoxamine salt such as deferoxamine mesylate salt (claims 1-2 and 20) (see sections 2.3 and 3.4, and Figure 4B and its description in Wang et al), chelating an amount of iron in the aqueous sample with the iron chelating agent (see the abstract and sections 2.3-2.5 in Wang et al), measuring an absorbance of the sample to which the working solution containing both the iron chelating agent and the colorimetric reagent has been added (see Figure 4B and its description in Wang et al), measuring a change in intensity of absorbance of the iron chelated sample, as compared to the absorbance prior to adding the working solution containing the iron chelating agent and the 5-Br-PAPS reagent to the sample, and correlating the change in absorbance intensity to an amount of zinc in the aqueous sample. See the abstract, sections 2.3-2.5, 3.4 and 4, and Figures 4A and 4B of Wang et al. Specifically, see Figures 4A and 4B of Wang et al where Figure 4A depicts the absorbances of aqueous samples containing zinc, various different interfering ions including iron, and a colorimetric PAPS reagent (i.e. aqueous samples prior to adding an iron chelating agent), and Figure 4B which depicts the absorbances of the same or identical volumes of the samples used in Figure 4A but having a working solution containing an iron chelating agent (i.e. deferoxamine mesylate) added thereto (i.e. the same, identical aqueous samples after adding an iron chelating agent). Thus, Wang et al teach of measuring an amount of zinc in a water sample by measuring a change in intensity of absorbance, as compared to an absorbance measured prior to adding an iron chelating agent, of an iron chelated water sample (i.e. the change in absorbances between those measured and depicted in figure 4A and those measured and depicted in Figure 4B), wherein the measuring a change in intensity is from the same identical volume of the samples measured prior to adding the iron chelating agent.
With regards to claim 5, Wang et al teach that an amount of iron in the aqueous sample analyzed in the method is at least 1.0 mg/L, such as in a range of 5-1000 mg/L. See the third paragraph in section 3.4 of Wang et al.
With regards to claims 6 and 20, Wang et al teach that the change in intensity of absorbance is proportional to a concentration of the amount of zinc in the aqueous sample. See Figure 2A in Wang et al which depicts the measured absorbance of the aqueous sample in relation to a concentration of zinc in the sample.
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). 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) 11-12 and 14-18 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 (US 2021/0372924). For a teaching of Wang et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action.
With regards to claims 11-12 and 14-18, 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 paragraph 0020 in Greenwalt) using an indicator solution. The measurement device comprises 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 claim 11 in Greenawalt.
Based upon the combination of Wang et al and Greenawalt, 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 teaches that it is advantageous to perform methods for detecting zinc in aqueous samples using a measurement device comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to perform the steps of the method since this type of 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 the remaining limitations recited in claims 11-12 and 14-18, see the above explanations for how Wang et al teach these limitations in paragraphs 9 and 12.
Claim(s) 19 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 (US 2021/0372924) as applied to claims 11-18 above, and further in view of Tunheim et al (US 2014/0061449). For a teaching of Wang et al, Greenawalt, and Tunheim et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action.
With regards to claim 19, the combination of Wang et al and Greenawalt fails to teach that the aqueous sample of drinking water analyzed using the measurement device taught by Greenawalt 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, Greenawalt, 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 and device taught by the combination of Wang et al and Greenawalt also contains monochloramine as an additional interferant therein because Tunheim et al teach that chloramines are usually present in drinking water samples as contaminants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous objection to claim 20 in the last Office action mailed on October 6, 2025 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments made to claim 20. However, the amended claims are now rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant argues the rejection of the claims under 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 by stating that the primary reference to Wang et al fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitation recited in the independent claims concerning “measuring an amount of zinc in the water sample by measuring a change in intensity of an absorbance, as compared to an absorbance measured prior to the adding the iron chelating agent, of the iron chelated water sample, wherein the measuring a change in intensity is from an identical volume of the sample” since Wang et al disclose using at least two volumes of a sample for measurement (i.e. both a blank sample and a test sample). This argument is not persuasive since the embodiment of the method depicted and described with reference to Figures 4A and 4B in Wang et al meet this limitation of the instant claims because Figure 4A depicts absorbances of aqueous samples containing zinc ions plus other ions including iron without any added iron chelating agent (i.e. deferoxamine) whereas Figure 4B depicts absorbances of the same aqueous samples having a working solution containing an iron chelating agent (i.e. deferoxamine) included therein. See Figures 4A and 4B of Wang et al where Figure 4A depicts the absorbances of aqueous samples containing zinc, various different interfering ions including iron, and a colorimetric PAPS reagent (i.e. aqueous samples prior to adding an iron chelating agent), and Figure 4B which depicts the absorbances of the same or identical volumes of the samples used in Figure 4A but having a working solution containing an iron chelating agent (i.e. deferoxamine mesylate) added thereto (i.e. the same, identical aqueous samples after adding an iron chelating agent). Thus, Wang et al teach of measuring an amount of zinc in a water sample by measuring a change in intensity of absorbance, as compared to an absorbance measured prior to adding an iron chelating agent, of an iron chelated water sample (i.e. the change in absorbances between those measured and depicted in figure 4A and those measured and depicted in Figure 4B), wherein the measuring a change in intensity is from the same identical volume of the samples measured prior to adding the iron chelating agent. Wang et al teach the measurement of the change in absorbances between the same samples depicted in Figures 4A and 4B regardless of also measuring absorbance differences between a blank sample only containing the colorimetric PAPS reagent without any aqueous sample containing zinc and other ions. The fact that a blank sample is also measured in the embodiment depicted in Figures 4A and 4B of Wang et al does not materially affect the absorbance measurements of the aqueous samples containing zinc and other ions both before and after addition of the iron chelating agent. It is noted that the instant specification also discloses measuring a “blank sample” in the method. See Figure 3 and paragraph 0035 in the instant specification where a first sample containing only zinc is measured as a control or blank sample, and a second sample containing zinc and iron ions is measured both in the absence and in the presence of an iron chelating reagent (i.e. deferoxamine).
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims remain rejected for the reasons set forth in the above paragraphs.
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 January 16, 2026