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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statements (IDS) was submitted by the Applicant
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 02/13/26 is acknowledged. Invention II (Claims 14-20) have been withdrawn
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 10 and 11 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 10 recites the limitation "the air gap" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is dependent upon Claim 1. There is no mention of an air gap in claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0235039 A1) and in further view of Samproni (US 2020/0278313 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a sensor assembly [fig. 1A, element 1; par. 94] comprising: a first sensor [fig. 1A, element 100; par. 94] being formed on a first substrate [fig. 1A, element 110; par. 94]; a second analyte sensor [fig. 1A, 1C, element 200; par. 96] being formed on a second substrate [fig. 3; element 210; par. 95]; wherein the first analyte sensor is coupled to the second analyte sensor within a coupling area defined by an overlap between the first analyte sensor and the second analyte sensor [fig. 1A, elements 100, 200]
However, Kim does not teach the first sensor is an analyte sensor
Samproni teaches the first sensor is an analyte sensor [fig. 2, element 11A; par. 24]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim, to incorporate the first sensor is an analyte sensor, for identifying multiple analytes, as evidence by Samproni [par. 24].
Regarding claim 2, Kim further teaches the first sensor has a first side [fig. 1A, 1B, element 110b; par. 94] and a second side [fig. 1A, element 110a; element 94], and further includes an internal electrode [fig. 1B, element 122] and external electrode [fig. 1B, element 123] formed on the first side of the first substrate [fig. 1A, 1B, elements 120, 110b; par. 94]
However, Kim does not teach a first analyte sensor includes a working electrode and counter/reference electrode
Samproni teaches a first analyte sensor includes a working electrode [fig. 2, elements 11a, 72; par. 38] and counter/reference electrode [fig. 2, elements 11a, 74; par. 38]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim, to incorporate the first sensor is an analyte sensor, for determining a voltage potential difference between certain of the electrodes, as evidence by Samproni [par. 30].
Regarding claim 3, Kim further teaches the second analyte sensor has a first side [fig. 1A, 1C, element 210a; par. 95, 96] and a second side [fig. 1A, element 210b; element 95], and further includes a second electrodes [fig. 1A, element 220] formed on a first side of the second substrate [fig. 1A, elements 210a, 220; par. 95, 96]
However, Kim does not teach the second analyte sensor includes a working electrode and counter/reference electrode
Samproni teaches a secoond analyte sensor includes a working electrode [fig. 2, elements 11b, 72; par. 38] and counter/reference electrode [fig. 2, elements 11b, 74; par. 38]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim, to incorporate the second sensor is an analyte sensor, for determining a voltage potential difference between certain of the electrodes, as evidence by Samproni [par. 30].
Regarding claim 4, Kim further teaches the second side of the first analyte sensor is coupled to the second side of the second analyte sensor [fig. 1A, elements 110a, 210b].
Regarding claim 5, Kim further teaches adhesive couples the first analyte sensor to the second analyte sensor within the coupling area
However, Kim does not teach adhesive is used for coupling layers
Samproni teaches adhesive is used for coupling layers [par. 36]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim, to incorporate adhesive is used for coupling layers, for bonding the first and second substrates, as evidence by Samproni [par. 36].
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Samproni and in further view of Marriott (US 2021/0059586 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kim and Samproni teach a sensor assembly, as disclosed above
However, Kim and Samproni do not teach the adhesive is selectively applied within the coupling area to create at least one air gap within the coupling area.
Marriott teaches the adhesive is selectively applied within the coupling area to create at least one air gap within the coupling area [fig. 1H, 1I, elements 503h, 513h; par. 51].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim and Samproni, to incorporate the adhesive is selectively applied within the coupling area to create at least one air gap within the coupling area, for allowing flexibility, as evidence by Marriott [par. 51].
Regarding claim 7, Samproni further teaches a first and second analyte sensor [fig. 2, element 11a, 11b; par. 24]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim, to incorporate a first and second analyte sensor, for identifying multiple analytes, as evidence by Samproni [par. 24].
Marriott further teaches the at least one air gap enables the first side to flex independently of the second side [par. 51]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim and Samproni, to incorporate the at least one air gap enables the first side to flex independently of the second side, for conforming to a wide variety of body types, sizes and shapes and body motions, as evidence by Marriott [par. 48].
Regarding claim 8, Kim further teaches the first sensor includes electrical conductors being sandwiched between electrical insulators [fig. 1B, elements 110, 121, 130; par. 56 “The first substrate 110 may include a fluorine-based polymer and have an insulation property”, 58 “The first electrode layer 121 may include a conductive thin film”, 59 “The first passivation layer 130 may include an insulative polymer”; Examiner notes layer 121 is between layers 110 and 130].
However, Kim does not teach a first analyte sensor
Samproni teaches the first sensor is an analyte sensor [fig. 2, element 11A; par. 24]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim, to incorporate the first sensor is an analyte sensor, for identifying multiple analytes, as evidence by Samproni [par. 24].
Regarding claim 9, Kim further teaches the second analyte sensor includes electrical conductors being sandwiched between electrical insulators [fig. 1C, elements 210, 221, 230; par. 61 “The second substrate 210 may include a fluorine-based polymer and have an insulation property”, par. 65 “The second electrode layer 221 may include a conductive thin film”, par. 67, “The second passivation layer 230 may have an insulation property”; Examiner notes layer 221 is between layers 210 and 230]
Regarding claim 10, Marriott further teaches the air gap does not extend to a distal end of the sensor assembly [fig. 1H, 1I, elements 503h, 513h; par. 51]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim and Samproni, to incorporate the air gap does not extend to a distal end of the sensor assembly, for allowing flexibility, as evidence by Marriott [par. 51].
Regarding claim 11, Marriott further teaches the air gap does not extend to the proximal end of the sensor assembly [fig. 1H, 1I, elements 503h, 513h; par. 51].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim and Samproni, to incorporate the air gap does not extend to the proximal end of the sensor assembly, for allowing flexibility, as evidence by Marriott [par. 51].
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Samproni and in further view of Hansen (US 12392768 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Kim and Samproni teach a sensor assembly, as disclosed above
However, Kim and Samproni do not teach the first substrate and the second substrate have different thicknesses.
Hansen teaches the first substrate and the second substrate have different thicknesses [col. 9: lines 66-67- col. 10: lines 1-28; Examiner notes that the first and second substrates could be any of the ranges of thickness].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim and Samproni, to incorporate the first substrate and the second substrate have different thicknesses, for allowing the substrates to have different lengths, as evidence by Hansen [col. 9: lines 66-67- col. 10: lines 1-28].
Regarding claim 13, Hansen further teaches the first substrate and the second substrate are a same thickness [col. 9: lines 66-67- col. 10: lines 1-28; Examiner notes that the first and second substrates could be any of the ranges of thickness].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim and Samproni, to incorporate the first substrate and the second substrate are a same thickness, as is common practice, as evidence by Hansen [col. 9: lines 66-67- col. 10: lines 1-28].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE L ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571)272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of publish
ed 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.
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791