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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al (article from Analytical Chemistry, vol. 61, no. 6, March 15, 1989, pages 619-623, submitted in the IDS filed on July 3, 2024) in view of Greenawalt et al (US 2023/0375514).
With regards to claim 1, Takeuchi et al teach of a method for measuring ozone in an aqueous sample comprising the steps of introducing an indigo-based indicator to a sample, wherein the sample contains an amount of ozone (see the second paragraph under the section “Sample Preparation” on page 619 of Takeuchi et al where it states “The O3 (aq) sample was prepared by passing the O3-containing gas through purified water”, the abstract of Takeuchi et al where it states “Indigo-5,5’-disulfonate (IDS) was found to be an efficient reagent for the determination of ozone…”, and the last paragraph in the left-hand column on page 620 of Takeuchi et al where it states “CL was observed when IDS was used as a reagent”), measuring a change in intensity of fluorescence of the sample as a result of introducing the indigo-based indicator to the sample, and correlating the measured change in intensity of fluorescence to an amount of ozone in the sample (see the section entitled “Spectral Measurements” on page 619 of Takeuchi et al where it states “Hitachi’s Model F-3000 spectrofluorometer was used for the measurement of fluorescence and CL spectra”, Figure 1 of Takeuchi et al which depicts a photomultiplier 14 and a recorder 17 for measuring fluorescence, Table III in Takeuchi et al which lists fluorescent excitation and emission wavelengths used to measure a change in fluorescence of the sample as a result of introducing an indigo-based indicator to the sample, and the last two paragraphs in the left-hand column and the first paragraph in the right-hand column on page 623 of Takeuchi et al where it states “In order to identify the CL species, the absorption and fluorescence spectra of the species related to this reaction were measured. Table III shows the maximum wavelength and… absorbance or relative intensity. The IDS solution itself does not fluoresce at all; however, as time went by after preparation, weak fluorescence appeared in the neighborhood of 400 nm and the intensity was observed to increase bit by bit. The findings suggested that IDS was oxidized by O3 or O2 in the air to form some fluorescent species. Next, when the O3 (aq) solution… was added to the IDS reagent solution before the measurement, a maximum in fluorescence appeared at the same position as the CL maximum (430 nm) in addition to 400 nm”).
Takeuchi et al fail to teach that citrate is also introduced into the sample along with the indigo-based indicator in the method.
Greenawalt et al teach of a method for measuring ozone in a sample comprising the steps of introducing a fluorescent indicator into a sample containing an amount of ozone to form a solution, wherein the introducing of the indicator to the sample causes a change in fluorescence of the solution, and measuring an amount of ozone in the sample by measuring the change in intensity of fluorescence. Greenawalt et al teach that a phosphate buffer is also added to the sample to adjust the pH of the solution, and that citrate may also be added to the sample as an additive to prevent the formation of a metal phosphate in the solution by complexation when a phosphate buffer is used. See the abstract, paragraphs 0025, 0030 and 0032, and the claims in Greenawalt et a.
Based upon a combination of Takeuchi 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 also add citrate to the sample analyzed for ozone in the method taught by Takeuchi et al in addition to the indigo-based indicator because Takeuchi et al teach of adding a phosphate buffer to the sample in the method (see the last paragraph in the left-hand column on page 620 of Takeuchi et al where it states “The pH was varied by adding a number of buffers so as to give 2 mM. The CL intensity became maximum in neutral solutions. Phosphate was the most appropriate buffer because of the larger CL intensity than that observed with other buffers”, and the second paragraph in the right-hand column on page 620 of Takeuchi et al where it states “The addition of phosphate, even in small quantity, was effective in enhancing the CL intensity”), and Greenwalt et al teach that when a phosphate buffer is used to adjust the pH of a fluorescent indicator reagent for ozone, it is advantageous to also add citrate to the sample since the citrate helps to prevent for the formation of a metal phosphate in the solution by complexation.
With regards to claims 2 and 12, Takeuchi et al teach that the indigo-based indicator used in the method is Indigo-5,5’-disulfonate (IDS). See the abstract of Takeuchi et al where it states “Indigo-5,5’-disulfonate (IDS) was found to be an efficient reagent for the determination of ozone…”.
In claims 3-4, 11 and 13-14, the phrase “titrating the sample to a pH” is being interpreted as being equivalent to adjusting the pH since paragraph 0025 in the instant specification states “For example, the pH may be adjusted or titrated to around a pH...”.
With regards to claims 3-4, 11 and 13-14, Takeuchi et al fail to teach of titrating or adjusting the pH of the sample analyzed for ozone in the method to a pH of about 7.0 or greater than 7.0. 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 the pH of the sample being analyzed for ozone in the method taught by Takeuchi et al to a pH of about 7.0 or greater than 7.0 because Takeuchi et al teach that the CL (chemiluminescence) intensity of the sample becomes maximum in neutral solutions and it is advantageous to add a phosphate buffer to the sample at a pH of about 7.2 to provide a maximum CL intensity (see the last paragraph in the left-hand column and.
With regards to claims 5 and 15, Takeuchi et al teach of adding a phosphate buffer to the sample in the method. See the last paragraph in the left-hand column on page 620 of Takeuchi et al where it states “The pH was varied by adding a number of buffers so as to give 2 mM. The CL intensity became maximum in neutral solutions. Phosphate was the most appropriate buffer because of the larger CL intensity than that observed with other buffers”, and the second paragraph in the right-hand column on page 620 of Takeuchi et al where it states “The addition of phosphate, even in small quantity, was effective in enhancing the CL intensity”.
With regards to claims 6 and 16, Takeuchi et al teach that an amount of ozone detected in the sample in the method is in a range of 0.025-410 ng/mL (see the abstract of Takeuchi et al), which is equivalent to 0.000025-0.41 mg/L, and this range is encompassed by the range of 0-1.7 mg/L recited in claim 6.
With regards to claims 7 and 17, Takeuchi et al fail to teach that a concentration of the indigo-based indicator used in the method is between 10-20 mM. 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 the concentration of the indigo-based indicator used in the method taught by the combination of Takeuchi et al and Greenawalt et al to a concentration between 10-20 mM because the amount of the indigo-based indicator to use in the method is dependent upon an expected amount of ozone in the sample analyzed, thus motivating one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the concentration of the indigo-based indicator to a level corresponding to an expected amount of ozone in the sample to be measured, such as between 10-20 mM.
With regards to claims 8 and 18, Takeuchi et al teach that the measuring of the fluorescence intensity uses an excitation wavelength of between 320-370 nm and an emission wavelength of between 420-470 nm. See Table III in Takeuchi et al which lists different fluorescence excitation and emission wavelengths used in the method, and the first paragraph in the right-hand column on page 623 of Takeuchi et al where it states “Next, when the O3 (aq) solution… was added to the IDS reagent solution before the measurement, a maximum in fluorescence appeared at the same position as the CL maximum (430 nm) in addition to 400 nm”.
With regards to claims 9 and 19, Takeuchi et al teach that the measuring of the change in intensity of fluorescence in the method occurs in a cuvette made of glass. See the section entitled “Apparatus” in the right-hand column on page 619 of Takeuchi et al where it states “Each of the reagent and sample solutions was introduced into the Pyrex glass disk type reaction cell…”, and see Figure 1 in Takeuchi et al.
With regards to claim 10, Takeuchi et al fail to teach that the sample analyzed for ozone in the method comprises water from a beverage system. However, 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 taught by Takeuchi et al on a sample comprising water from a beverage system because Takeuchi et al teach that drinking water usually contains amounts of ozone since ozone is used to treat drinking water to remove hazardous chlorinated organic compounds therein. See the first paragraph of the Introduction section on page 619 of Takeuchi et al.
With regards to claim 20, Takeuchi et al teach of a measurement device for measuring ozone in a sample comprising an indigo-based indicator (see the abstract of Takeuchi et al where it states “Indigo-5,5’-disulfonate (IDS) was found to be an efficient reagent for the determination of ozone…”), and a measurement chamber 12 for combining a sample with the indigo-based indicator (see the reaction cell 12 in the apparatus depicted in Figure 1 of Takeuchi et al). The combination of Takeuchi et al and Greenawalt et al fails to teach that the measurement device also comprises a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to introduce the indigo-based indicator into a sample in the reaction cell 12 and to measure an amount of ozone in the sample by measuring a change in fluorescence of the sample. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor in the measurement device taught by the combination of Greenawalt et al and Takeuchi et al because such a processor and memory storing instructions to introduce the indigo-based indicator into a sample in the reaction cell 12 and to measure an amount of ozone in the sample by measuring a change in fluorescence of the sample would allow the method taught by Takeuchi et al to be performed automatically, thus facilitating a quicker and more efficient analysis of ozone in a sample. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) which states that that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/342,216 in view of Greenawalt et al (US 2023/0375514). For a teaching of Greenwalt et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action.
Claims 1-20 in application 18/342,216 recite a method and a measurement device for measuring ozone in a sample comprising the steps of introducing an indigo-based indicator to a sample in a measurement chamber of the measurement device, wherein the sample contains an amount of ozone and the introducing causes a change in fluorescence intensity of the sample, measuring the change in intensity of the fluorescence of the sample, and correlating the measured change in intensity of fluorescence to an amount of ozone in the sample. Both sets of claims also recite that the indigo-based indicator is indigo-5,5’-disulfonate sodium salt or indigo carmine, that the method further comprises titrating the sample to a pH of about 7.0 or greater than 7.0, that the method further comprises adding a phosphate buffer to the sample, that the amount of ozone in the sample is in a range of 0-1.7 mg/L (see claims 6 and 16 in application 16/342,216 which recite an amount of ozone in the sample between 0-2.1 mg/L which encompasses and includes the entire range of 0-1.7 mg/L recited in instant claims 6 and 16), that the change in intensity of fluorescence of the sample is measured using an excitation wavelength of between 320-370 nm and an emission wavelength of between 420 and 470 nm, that the change in intensity of fluorescence of the sample is measured in a cuvette made of glass or methacrylate, and that the sample comprises water from a beverage material system.
While the claims in application 18/342,216 recite an additional step of introducing an ammonium salt to the sample in the method, the claims in application 18/342,216 recite all of the same steps and components of the measurement device as recited in the instant claims, with the exception of also adding citrate to the sample in the method. However, based upon a combination of claims 1-20 recited in application 18/342,216 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 also add citrate to the sample analyzed for ozone in the method and device recited in the claims of application 18/342,216 in addition to the indigo-based indicator because Greenwalt et al teach that when a phosphate buffer is used to adjust the pH of a fluorescent indicator reagent for ozone (which the claims in 18/342,216 recite), it is advantageous to also add citrate to the sample since the citrate helps to prevent the formation of a metal phosphate in the solution by complexation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous objections to the claims made in the last Office action mailed on February 17, 2026 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments made to the claims. The previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Takeuchi et al in view of Miwa et al (WO 2008/056513) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s persuasive argument that in the method taught by Miwa et al, the indigo-based indicator reacts with ozone to produce a color change rather than a change in fluorescence intensity, as recited in the instant claims. Therefore, the citrate taught by Miwa et al as being added to the sample containing ozone in addition to the indigo-based indicator only serves to allow the structure and electronic state of the indigo carmine dye to change in the presence of ozone to detect the ozone by a color change, not by fluorescence, as recited in the instant claims. The previous rejection of the claims on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/342,216 in view of Miwa et al has also been withdrawn for the same reasons.
Applicant argues that the provisional rejection of the claims on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claims in U.S. Application serial no. 18/342,216 in view of Greenawalt et al is now moot in view of the amendments made to the claims. This argument is not persuasive as the amended claims in this application are still patentably indistinct from the claims in application serial no. 18/342,216 in view of Greenawalt et al (US 2023/0375514) for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant argues the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Takeuchi et al in view of Greenawalt et al by stating that while Takeuchi et al teach that “the CL intensity was proportional to the O3 concentration in the range of 0.025-410 ng/mL” such a statement could indicate a proportional relationship between the CL and O3 in that range, but does not indicate measurement of O3 in that stated range. This argument is not persuasive since Takeuchi et al teach that O3 is actually measured in the method using fluorescence measurements of an aqueous sample after being combined with an indigo-based indicator in the range of 0.025-410 ng/mL. See the fourth paragraph in the left-hand column on page 621 of Takeuchi et al where it states “The CL intensity linearly increased with the O3(aq) concentration over the tested range of concentration (0.025<[O3(aq)]<410 ng/mL…the lowest concentration examined was 0.025 ng mL-1”. This teaching indicates that actual measurements of O3 in the concentration range of 0.025-410 ng/mL were performed in the method taught by Takeuchi et al.
Applicant also argues that Takeuchi et al teach of measuring ozone in an aqueous sample using both a NBKI method and an Ebara Model EL-2001 aqueous-phase UV O3 meter, and when O3 concentrations are below 20 ng mL-1, aqueous O3 concentrations are calculated from gas-phase O3 concentration using the Henry’s constant. Applicant argues that such a system is readily distinguishable from the instant disclosed method comprising “introducing an indigo-based indicator to a sample, wherein the sample contains an amount of ozone and the introducing causes a change in fluorescence of the solution; and measuring the amount of ozone in the sample by measuring the change in intensity of the fluorescence.” This argument is not persuasive since the steps of measuring aqueous ozone in samples using both a NBKI method and an Ebara Model EL-2001 aqueous-phase UV O3 meter, and when O3 concentrations are below 20 ng mL-1, using a calculation from gas-phase O3 concentration using the Henry’s constant, are described by Takeuchi et al as reference methods for measuring ozone in the prepared aqueous samples in order to establish reference concentrations of the ozone in the aqueous samples with which to compare the ozone concentrations measured in the main experimental spectral fluorescence measurement method taught by Takeuchi et al to. The main experimental method taught by Takeuchi et al comprises the steps of introducing an indigo-based indicator to a sample, wherein the sample contains an amount of ozone (see the second paragraph under the section “Sample Preparation” on page 619 of Takeuchi et al where it states “The O3 (aq) sample was prepared by passing the O3-containing gas through purified water”, the abstract of Takeuchi et al where it states “Indigo-5,5’-disulfonate (IDS) was found to be an efficient reagent for the determination of ozone…”, and the last paragraph in the left-hand column on page 620 of Takeuchi et al where it states “CL was observed when IDS was used as a reagent”), measuring a change in intensity of fluorescence of the sample as a result of introducing the indigo-based indicator to the sample, and correlating the measured change in intensity of fluorescence to an amount of ozone in the sample (see the section entitled “Spectral Measurements” on page 619 of Takeuchi et al where it states “Hitachi’s Model F-3000 spectrofluorometer was used for the measurement of fluorescence and CL spectra”, Figure 1 of Takeuchi et al which depicts a photomultiplier 14 and a recorder 17 for measuring fluorescence, Table III in Takeuchi et al which lists fluorescent excitation and emission wavelengths used to measure a change in fluorescence of the sample as a result of introducing an indigo-based indicator to the sample, and the last two paragraphs in the left-hand column and the first paragraph in the right-hand column on page 623 of Takeuchi et al where it states “In order to identify the CL species, the absorption and fluorescence spectra of the species related to this reaction were measured. Table III shows the maximum wavelength and… absorbance or relative intensity. The IDS solution itself does not fluoresce at all; however, as time went by after preparation, weak fluorescence appeared in the neighborhood of 400 nm and the intensity was observed to increase bit by bit. The findings suggested that IDS was oxidized by O3 or O2 in the air to form some fluorescent species. Next, when the O3 (aq) solution… was added to the IDS reagent solution before the measurement, a maximum in fluorescence appeared at the same position as the CL maximum (430 nm) in addition to 400 nm”). The other methods disclosed by Takeuchi et al for measuring ozone concentration in the aqueous prepared samples (i.e. a NBKI method, an Ebara Model EL-2001 aqueous-phase UV O3 meter, and calculations from gas-phase O3 concentration using the Henry’s constant) are reference methods used for comparison purposes to evaluate the precision and accuracy of the results provided by the fluorescence method taught by Takeuchi et al, and to evaluate how closely the fluorescence measurement results mimic the results provided by the reference methods. See Table I and page 621 of Takeuchi et al where the results produced from each of the reference methods (i.e. SP/UV O3 monitor and SP/NBKI) and the experimental method (i.e. CL/IDS and SP/IDS) are presented and compared.
Applicant also argues that Takeuchi et al disclose a transient chemiluminescence change for detection of a product without a before and after differential fluorescence measurement upon the sample so as to measure a fluorescence intensity change, as recited in the instant claims. This argument is not persuasive since Table III on page 622 of Takeuchi et al depicts fluorescence measurements between a sample or solution containing just an indigo-based indicator (see the column labeled as IDSd in Table III) and a solution containing both the indigo-based indicator plus ozone (see the column labeled +O3(aq) in Table III). These two fluorescence measurements represent a differential measurement upon a sample containing ozone both before and after adding an indigo-based indicator to the sample. Also, see the last two paragraphs in the left-hand column and the first paragraph in the right-hand column on page 623 of Takeuchi et al where it states “In order to identify the CL species, the absorption and fluorescence spectra of the species related to this reaction were measured. Table III shows the maximum wavelength and… absorbance or relative intensity. The IDS solution itself does not fluoresce at all; however, as time went by after preparation, weak fluorescence appeared in the neighborhood of 400 nm and the intensity was observed to increase bit by bit. The findings suggested that IDS was oxidized by O3 or O2 in the air to form some fluorescent species. Next, when the O3 (aq) solution… was added to the IDS reagent solution before the measurement, a maximum in fluorescence appeared at the same position as the CL maximum (430 nm) in addition to 400 nm”).
Applicant also argues that the Greenawalt et al reference does not teach the same method as recited in the instant claims since the indicator used to detect ozone in the method taught by Greenwalt et al is different and distinguishable from that of the instant application. This argument is not persuasive since the primary reference to Takeuchi et al teaches of using the same type of indigo-based indicator as recited in the instant claims (i.e. Indigo-5,5’-disulfonate (IDS)) to detect ozone in a sample using a measurement of fluorescence. Takeuchi et al also teach of adding a phosphate buffer to the sample in the method. See the last paragraph in the left-hand column on page 620 of Takeuchi et al where it states “The pH was varied by adding a number of buffers so as to give 2 mM. The CL intensity became maximum in neutral solutions. Phosphate was the most appropriate buffer because of the larger CL intensity than that observed with other buffers”, and the second paragraph in the right-hand column on page 620 of Takeuchi et al where it states “The addition of phosphate, even in small quantity, was effective in enhancing the CL intensity”. The secondary reference to Greenawalt et al is used to show the obviousness of also adding citrate to a sample being analyzed for ozone by adding a fluorescent-type indicator to the sample when a phosphate buffer is also added to the sample. Greenawalt et al teach that it is advantageous to also add citrate the sample containing ozone in addition to the fluorescent-type indicator because the citrate helps to prevent the formation of a metal phosphate in the solution by complexation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also add citrate to the sample analyzed for ozone in the method taught by Takeuchi et al in addition to the indigo-based indicator because Takeuchi et al teach of adding a phosphate buffer to the sample in the method, and Greenwalt et al teach that when a phosphate buffer is used to adjust the pH of a fluorescent indicator reagent for ozone, it is advantageous to also add citrate to the sample since the citrate helps to prevent for the formation of a metal phosphate in the solution by complexation.
Applicant argues that the rejections made under 35 USC 103 contain other deficiencies, but does not elaborate on or explain these deficiencies. The claims remain rejected for the reasons set forth above.
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 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 June 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights