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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/25/2023 and 04/02/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I, Claims 1-9, without traverse in the reply filed on 07/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: Table 1 lists the molecular weight of Fe(CN)63-- as 329.2 g/mol, which is not correct. The molecular weights of iron (Fe) and cyanide (CN) are, respectively, 55.845 g/mol and 26.018 g/mol, leading to the molecular weight of Fe(CN)63- being 55.845+ 6x26.018=211.953 g/mol instead of 329.2 g/mol disclosed in Table 1 of this instant specification.
Claim Objection
Claims 1-3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 3: please amend “the array” to -- the array of working electrodes--.
Claim 2: please amend “the charge” to -- the electrical charge --.
Claim 7: please amend “the analyte mixture” to -- the of analytes --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the potential between each of the film-coated working electrodes and a reference electrode”, which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-9 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “wherein the difference between the molecular weights of the anions is not less than 100 g/mol”. Table 1 of the specification lists the anions of Fe(CN)63- and ascorbic acid (AscH-). Based on the molecular weights of Fe(CN)63- and ascorbic acid (AscH-) in Table 1, the difference between their molecular weights is 329.2-176.1=153.1 g/mol, which is not less than 100 g/mol. As outlined in the objection to specification above, the molar weight of Fe(CN)63- in Table 1 is not correct, and the molar weight of Fe(CN)63- should be 211.953 g/mol. Then the difference between their molecular weights is 211.953-176.1=35.853 g/mol, which is less than 100 g/mol instead of the claimed “not less than 100 g/mol”. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In reHammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970) [see MPEP 2173.03]. In this instant case, it is unclear if the anions comprise Fe(CN)63- and ascorbic acid disclosed in the specification. Therefore, the scope of claim 8 is indefinite. Claim 9 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “the mixture of analytes comprises … trivalent anion with molecular weight above 300 g/mol”. Table 1 of the specification lists the trivalent anion of Fe(CN)63- and its molecular weight of 329.2 g/mol. As outlined in the objection to specification above, the molar weight of Fe(CN)63- in Table 1 is not correct, and the molar weight of Fe(CN)63- should be 211.953 g/mol, which is below instead of above 300 g/mol. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In reHammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970) [see MPEP 2173.03]. In this instant case, it is unclear if the trivalent anion is Fe(CN)63- disclosed in the specification or other trivalent anion having molecular weight above 300 g/mol. Therefore, the scope of claim 9 is indefinite.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ben-Yoav et al. (WO2018225058A1). Nakatsuka et al. (Differentiating siblings: the case of dopamine and norepinephrine, ACS Chemical Neuroscience, 2017, 8, 218-220) and Shukla et al. (The effect of loading carbon nanotubes onto chitosan films on electrochemical dopamine sensing in the presence of biological interference, Talanta, 2018, 181, 57-64) are evidences for claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Ben-Yoav teaches an electrochemical method of determining the presence and optionally the concentration of at least two analytes in a test sample which contains a mixture of analytes (a method of electrochemical detection of one or more analytes in a liquid sample [claim 19]; the analyte of interest is dopamine and/or norepinephrine and the interferant is uric acid [claim 22]; a preferred embodiment of the invention is directed to the analysis of biofluid sample for determining the presence and concentration of neurotransmitters [dopamine and/or norepinephrine] [the first paragraph on page 6]), wherein the analytes differ from one another in electrical charge and/or size (dopamine [DA] and norepinephrine [NE] differ from one another in electrical charge and/or size since their molar weights are different and there is an additional hydroxyl group [OH] on the ethylamine side chain of NE compared to DA, as evidenced by Fig.1 in Nakatsuka), comprising the steps of:
applying variable voltage, fixed voltage, current or impedance across an array of working electrodes (applying variable voltage, fixed voltage, current or impedance across the working electrodes of an electrochemical sensor as defined in any one of claims 1 to 11 [claim 19]) consisting of electrodes coated with films of varying thickness and optionally a bare electrode (An electrochemical sensor comprising a counter electrode, optionally a reference electrode, and an array of multiple working electrodes, wherein at least one of the working electrodes is a film-coated electrode, and wherein the film- forming material has repeat unit that comprises six-membered non-aromatic ring [claim 1]; wherein the array of working electrodes comprises: a first subarray consisting of one or more bare electrode; a second subarray consisting of one or more film-coated electrodes [claim 2]; two distinct film-coated electrodes may differ from one another in the film material and/or film thickness [the 2nd paragraph on page 7]), when the array of working electrodes is in contact with the test sample (bringing a liquid sample into contact with an electrochemical sensor as defined in any one of claims 1 to 11 [claim 19]);
measuring the current flowing or the impedance between each of the film-coated working electrodes and a counter electrode, or the potential between each of the film-coated working electrodes and a reference electrode, to obtain a raw data set consisting of a plurality of electrochemical signals (measuring the current flowing or the impedance between each of the working electrodes and a counter electrode, or the potential between each of the working electrodes and a reference electrode, to obtain a raw data set consisting of plurality of electrochemical signals [claim 19]);
preprocessing the raw data set (preprocessing the raw data set [claim 19]); and
applying chemometric method(s) to the processed data, to qualitatively or quantitively characterize the at least two analytes of interest (applying chemometric method (s) to the preprocessed data, to qualitatively or quantitively characterize the analyte of interest [claim 19]; wherein the analyte of interest is dopamine and/or norepinephrine and the interferant is uric acid [claim 22]);
wherein the working electrodes are coated with films which contain covalently-bonded ionizable chemical groups, such that the films assume an electrical charge in the test sample (wherein the six-membered, non-aromatic ring bears amine group, carboxylic acid group, hydroxyl group or sulfonic acid group covalently bonded to a carbon atom of said ring [claim 4]; the film-forming material is chitosan [claim 6], which is an amino-substituted polysaccharide [the third paragraph on page 8], thus chitosan has amine group, which is further evidenced by Shukla: “the positively charged amine groups of the chitosan film may interact with a negatively charged molecule” [the first paragraph in Col. 1 on page 58 in Shukla]).
Regarding claim 4, Ben-Yoav teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the films contain protonatable chemical groups (wherein the six-membered, non-aromatic ring bears amine group, carboxylic acid group, hydroxyl group or sulfonic acid group covalently bonded to a carbon atom of said ring [claim 4]; the film-forming material is chitosan [claim 6], which is an amino-substituted polysaccharide [the third paragraph on page 8],the film-forming material is chitosan [claim 6], which is an amino-substituted polysaccharide [the third paragraph on page 8]. The amine group, carboxylic acid group, hydroxyl group or sulfonic acid group is a protonatable chemical group).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Yoav, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Shukla et al. (The effect of loading carbon nanotubes onto chitosan films on electrochemical dopamine sensing in the presence of biological interference, Talanta, 2018, 181, 57-64).
Regarding claim 2, Ben-Yoav teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches a preferred film- forming material is a polymer having a six-membered, non- aromatic ring in the repeating unit, bearing chemical group that becomes charged in solution, such as amine, hydroxyl, carboxylic acid and sulfonic acid. polysaccharides such as chitosan (an amino-substituted polysaccharide) and alginate (an acidic polysaccharide) lend themselves to electrodeposition owing to their pH-dependent hydrogel-forming properties. Preferred additives are conductive additives selected from the group consisting of carbon nanotubes , gold nanoparticles and platinum nanoparticles [the 2nd and third paragraphs on page 8].
Ben-Yoav is silent to wherein at least one of the analytes possesses an electrical charge that is opposite to the charge assumed by the films.
Shukla teaches an electrochemical method of determining dopamine in the presence of biological interference (uric acid) by using a working electrode coated with chitosan-carbon nanotubes (abstract and Fig.1). Shukla further teaches the positively charged amine groups of the chitosan film may interact with a negatively charged molecule, this affecting the diffusion coefficient of this molecule and increasing its generated electrochemical current, according to Randles-Sevcik relationship (the first paragraph in Col. 1 on page 58). Other properties of the chitosan-CNT film, such as its thickness, can also influence the electrochemical signal. To improve the resolution of the studied film properties, an array of micro-electrodes, with better control of the process dynamics, can be used (the 2nd paragraph in Conclusions on page 62).
Ben-Yoav and Shukla are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrochemical method of sensing neurotransmitter dopamine in the presence of UA by using electrochemical sensor comprising working electrode coated with chitosan-CNT film. Since the positively charged amine groups of the chitosan film may interact with a negatively charged molecule, affect the diffusion coefficient of this molecule and increase its generated electrochemical current (as taught by Shukla), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical charges of the films in Ben-Yoav to provide at least one of the analytes possesses an electrical charge that is opposite to the electrical charge assumed by the films, since the interaction between the oppositely charged analyte and film would
affect the diffusion coefficient of the analyte and increase its generated electrochemical current (the first paragraph in Col. 1 on page 58 in Shukla).
Regarding claim 3, Ben-Yoav teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches the electrochemical sensor comprises an array consisting of a total of n working electrodes (3<n≤50, preferably 3<n≤30, e.g., 3<n≤10) subdivided to include k bare electrodes (l≤k≤n/2, for example, l≤k≤n/3), m film-coated working electrodes (l≤m≤n-k, preferably at least two film- coated electrodes) and p conductive additive-incorporated film- coated electrodes (l≤p≤n/2, for example, l≤p≤n/3) (the 3rd paragraph on page 7). The array of multiple working electrodes comprises a set of film-coated working electrodes which differ from one another in one or more of the following features: film material, film thickness, film density and loading level of conductivity additives that are incorporated into the film (the 2nd paragraph on page 11). Thus, Ben-Yoav teaches wherein the array includes a set of film-coated one or more working electrodes coated with different film thickness.
Ben-Yoav is silent to wherein the array includes: one or more working electrodes coated with 15 to 35 nm thick films; one or more working electrodes coated with 35 to 50 nm thick films; one or more working electrodes coated with 50 to 65 nm thick films;
one or more working electrodes coated with 65 to 80 nm thick films; and one or more working electrodes coated with 80 to 100 nm thick films.
Shukla teaches an electrochemical method of determining dopamine in the presence of biological interference (uric acid) by using a working electrode coated with chitosan-carbon nanotubes (abstract and Fig.1). Shukla further teaches other properties of the chitosan-CNT film, such as its thickness, can also influence the electrochemical signal. To improve the resolution of the studied film properties, an array of micro-electrodes, with better control of the process dynamics, can be used (the 2nd paragraph in Conclusions on page 62).
Since Shukla teaches the film thickness influences the electrochemical signal and suggests the use of an array of micro-electrodes to improve the resolution of the studied film properties, and Ben-Yoav teaches wherein the array includes a set of film-coated one or more working electrodes coated with different film thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the array of working electrodes in Ben-Yoav to include one or more working electrodes coated with a film thickness of range A; one or more working electrodes coated with a film thickness of range B; one or more working electrodes coated with a film thickness of range C; one or more working electrodes coated with a film thickness of range D; and one or more working electrodes coated with a film thickness of range E, since it would allow to improve the resolution of the film thickness on the electrochemical signal (the 2nd paragraph in Conclusions on page 62 in Shukla).
As the electrochemical signal is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the film thickness, the precise film thickness ranges A-E for the respective one or more working electrodes would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness ranges A-E cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the film thickness ranges A-E in Ben-Yoav to obtain the desired film thickness for each of the one or more working electrodes in order to improve the resolution of the film thickness on the electrochemical signal, as taught by Shukla. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Yoav, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Shukla et al. (A Chitosan-Carbon nanotube-modified microelectrode for in situ detection of blood levels of the antipsychotic clozapine in a finger-pricked sample volume, Advanced healthcare materials, 2019, 8, 1900462; hereinafter Shukla_I) and Shukla et al. (The effect of loading carbon nanotubes onto chitosan films on electrochemical dopamine sensing in the presence of biological interference, Talanta, 2018, 181, 57-64).
Regarding claim 5, Ben-Yoav teaches the method according to claim 1, and is silent to wherein the mixture of analytes comprises: at least one anion, or a compound dissociating in solution to liberate an anion; and at least one neutral molecule.
Shukla_I teaches a chitosan-carbon nanotube-modified microelectrode (see Fig.1) for the detection of clozapine in the presence of interfering species (a mixture of clozapine, uric acid, ascorbic acid, L-homocysteine and dopamine [Table 2]). CLZ standard solution were prepared by diluting the CLZ stocks solution with a PBS solution or with an undiluted serum or whole blood. UA, L-HCy, AA, and DA were prepared in PBS solution according to their bioavailability in human blood for the interference study. A redox couple ferrocyanide/ferricyanide testing solution consisted of Fe(CN)6]4- and Fe(CN)6]3- were dissolved in the PBS solution [the 1st paragraph in Col. 2 on page 11].
Shukla teaches an electrochemical method of determining dopamine in the presence of biological interference (uric acid) by using a working electrode coated with chitosan-carbon nanotubes (abstract and Fig.1). Shukla further teaches a PBS
solution containing ferricyanide and ferrocyanide was used as a supporting electrolyte for the electrochemical measurements (section 2.1).
Ben-Yoav, Shukla and Shukla_I are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrochemical method of sensing target analyte in the presence of interfering species by using a similar electrochemical sensor comprising working electrode coated with chitosan-CNT film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mixture of analytes in Ben-Yoav with a mixture of analytes comprising clozapine, uric acid, ascorbic acid, L-homocysteine and dopamine in a PBS solution containing redox couple of ferricyanide and ferrocyanide as the supporting electrolyte, as taught by combined Shukla_I and Shukla, since it would provide a method for rapid and minimally invasive clozapine detection at the point-of -care (abstract in Shukla_I).
The substituted mixture of analytes comprises at least one anion or a compound dissociating in solution to liberate an anion (Fe(CN)6]3- and AscH- of the ascorbic acid); and at least one neutral molecule (L-homocysteine). The disclosed L-homocysteine is the same as the neutral molecule of L-homocysteine in this instant application, as evidenced by Table 1 of the instant specification. Thus, the disclosed L-homocysteine is deemed as the neutral molecule. Accordingly, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed property (i.e. L-homocysteine being neutral molecule), is necessarily present in the prior art material. The courts have held that “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ben-Yoav teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the mixture of analytes comprises two or more anions (Fe(CN)6]3- and AscH- as outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the anions differ in ionic charge and/or molecular weight (Fe(CN)6]3- and AscH- differ in ionic charge and molecular weight).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ben-Yoav teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the anions in the analyte mixture differ in ionic charge and molecular weight (Fe(CN)6]3- and AscH- differ in ionic charge and molecular weight).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ben-Yoav teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the difference between the molecular weights of the anions is not less than 100 g/mol (the disclosed anions of Fe(CN)6]3- and AscH- are the same as those in the instant application, as evidenced by Table 1 of this instant specification. Since the prior art does disclose the anions comprising the same components as that of the applicant, it is contended that the difference between the molecular weights of the anions of the prior art is not less than 100 g/mol. Accordingly, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed property (i.e. the difference between the molecular weights of the anions is not less than 100 g/mol), is necessarily present in the prior art material. The courts have held that “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 (II)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ben-Yoav teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the mixture of analytes comprises:
monovalent anion (AscH-) with a molecular weight below 200 g/mol; trivalent anion (Fe(CN)6]3-) with molecular weight above 300 g/mol (the disclosed anions of Fe(CN)6]3- and AscH- are the same as those in the instant application, as evidenced by Table 1 of this instant specification. Since the prior art does disclose the anions comprising the same components as that of the applicant, it is contended that the molecular weights of disclosed AscH- and Fe(CN)6]3- are the same as the molecular weights of AscH- and Fe(CN)6]3- listed in Table 1 of this instant specification (i.e., 329.2 g/mol for Fe(CN)6]3- and 176.1 g/mol for AscH-). Accordingly, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed property (i.e. monovalent anion [AscH-] with a molecular weight below 200 g/mol and trivalent anion [Fe(CN)6]3-] with molecular weight above 300 g/mol), is necessarily present in the prior art material. The courts have held that “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 (II)); and
a neutral molecule (as outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above, L-homocysteine is deemed as the neutral molecule).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ben-Yoav et al. (Chitosan bio-functionalization of carbon nanotube arrayed electrode, Advanced Materials Letters, 2017, 8, 1166-1170) teaches array of working electrodes coated with a film of chitosan-CNT. Shukla et al. (a reduced-graphene oxide-modified microelectrode for a repeatable detection of antipsychotic clozapine using microliters-volumes of whole blood, Talanta, 2020, 209, 120560) teaches electrochemical detection of CLZ with a WE coated with a film of rGO.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Luan V. Van can be reached on (571) 272-8521. 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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795