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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-23 in the reply filed on March 3, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
For claims 6 and 17, the Examiner notes that the optical waveguide is not a structural element of the claimed sensor unit as the claim does not recite a sensor unit comprising an optical waveguide.
For claims 11 and 22, the Examiner notes that the phrase “sets a defined state for calibrating the sensor element” is not a structural element of the claim. The claim does not specify what the “defined state” is or represents, thus the Examiner contends that the defined state is not a structural element of the sensor unit.
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 1-22 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 "the one hand" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other hand" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-11 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are also indefinite.
For claim 11, it is unclear what structural element is being claimed as the phrase “sets a defined state for calibrating the sensor element” is not a structural limitation. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will read the phrase in question as intended use which does not impart patentability to the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the one hand" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the other hand" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13-23 depend directly or indirectly from claim 12 and are also indefinite.
For claim 22, it is unclear what structural element is being claimed as the phrase “sets a defined state for calibrating the sensor element” is not a structural limitation. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will read the phrase in question as intended use which does not impart patentability to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riechers (DE 102017110671).
For claim 1, Riechers teaches a sensor unit comprising a sensor element (paragraph 0039, figure 1 #2), a volume with an auxiliary medium (reservoir, paragraphs 0040, 0043, figure 1 #14), and a membrane (paragraph 0040, 0044, figure 1 #12) wherein the membrane allows diffusive contact between the auxiliary medium and the sensor (paragraph 0043). Riechers also teaches the sensor measuring a sample (measurement state) when the membrane is removed from the sensor (paragraph 0044, figure 3). The Examiner notes that the claim is being read in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in which various elements of the claim are indefinite.
For claim 12, Riechers teaches a sample container (sample vessel) comprising a sensor unit comprising a sensor element (paragraph 0039, figure 1 #2), a volume with an auxiliary medium (reservoir, paragraphs 0040, 0043, figure 1 #14), and a membrane (paragraph 0040, 0044, figure 1 #12) wherein the membrane allows diffusive contact between the auxiliary medium and the sensor (paragraph 0043). Riechers also teaches the sensor measuring a sample (measurement state) when the membrane is removed from the sensor (paragraph 0044, figure 3). The Examiner notes that the claim is being read in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in which various elements of the claim are indefinite.
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) 2-11 and 13-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riechers (DE 102017110671) in view of Lobbert (US 2021/0055229).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Riechers does not teach a reservoir and membrane detachably connected to the sensor unit.
Lobbert teaches an optochemical sensor having a cap (paragraph 0048) wherein the cap comprises a reservoir and a membrane (paragraph 0048, figure 2 #’s 3 and 13). The Examiner notes that the space between front side 12 (figure 2) and membrane 13 (figure 2) as the reservoir as Lobbert teaches the front side being in contact with the medium to be tested (paragraph 0050). Lobbert teaches that it is advantageous to provide a detachable cap as a means removing a sensor cap once it exhibits increased drift in measurements (paragraph 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Riechers to include a detachable cap in order to remove a senso that exhibits increased drift in its measurements as taught by Lobbert.
Regarding claims 3 and 14. Riechers teaches a membrane holder (cap, paragraph 0040, figure 1 #13) that covers the reservoir and sensor (paragraph 0040).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Riechers teaches a sensor element arranged on a wall (support, paragraph 0051, figure 8 #19), but do not teach a detachable cap having a membrane.
Lobbert teaches an optochemical sensor having a cap (paragraph 0048) wherein the cap comprises a reservoir and a membrane (paragraph 0048, figure 2 #’s 3 and 13). The Examiner notes that the space between front side 12 (figure 2) and membrane 13 (figure 2) as the reservoir as Lobbert teaches the front side being in contact with the medium to be tested (paragraph 0050). Lobbert teaches that it is advantageous to provide a detachable cap as a means removing a sensor cap once it exhibits increased drift in measurements (paragraph 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Riechers to include a detachable cap in order to remove a senso that exhibits increased drift in its measurements as taught by Lobbert.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Riechers teaches a flow element (sensor part, paragraph 0044, figure 3 #83), a sensor attached to the flow element (paragraph 0043, figure 3 #83), a volume with an auxiliary medium (reservoir, paragraphs 0040, 0043, figure 1 #14), and a membrane (paragraph 0040, 0044, figure 1 #12) wherein the membrane allows diffusive contact between the auxiliary medium and the sensor (paragraph 0043). Riechers also teaches the sensor measuring a sample (measurement state) when the membrane is removed from the sensor (paragraph 0044, figure 3) which meets the limitation of the membrane and sensor being displaceable with respect to one another.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Riechers teaches a flow element having a channel (sensor part, paragraph 0044, figure 3 #83). The Examiner notes that the optical waveguide is not claimed as a structural element of the device, and therefore is not a required element of the device.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Riechers teaches a channel (opening, paragraph 0043) through which the sensor is accessible to a substance (paragraph 0043, figure 2 #15). The Examiner notes that the claim is being read in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in which the phrase “environment of the sensor unit” is unclear.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Riechers teaches a storage medium (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Riechers teaches water as a storage medium (paragraph 0022).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Riechers teaches the medium comprising carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide (paragraph 0022) both of which are antimicrobial agents.
Regarding claims 11 and 22, the Examiner notes that the claim is being read in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in which it is unclear what structural element is being claimed. The Examiner also notes that the medium of Riechers can be utilized for calibration (paragraphs 0021, 0022), thus the prior art sensor is capable of being utilized as recited in the claims.
Regarding claim 23, Riechers teaches the device being sterilized (paragraph 0036).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (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 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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights