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 .
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed April 22, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 have been cancelled; claims 12-24 are new and claims 16-24 are withdrawn. Claims 12-15 are currently examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 22, 2025.
New grounds of claim objection are necessitated as outlined below.
New grounds of claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are necessitated as outlined below.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objection
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12: please amend “one or both of the second electrode (401) or the third electrode (201)” to -- one or both of the second electrode (401) [[or]] and the third electrode (201)--; “and wherein the coating provides” to – [[and]] wherein the coating provides --; “the sensor” to --the electrochemical biofilm sensor--.
Claim 14: please amend “one or more of the first electrode (101), the second electrode (401), or the third electrode (201)” to --one or more of the first electrode (101), the second electrode (401),[[or]] and the third electrode-- (201)--.
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 12-15 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 12, claim 12 recites “wherein one or both of the second electrode (401) [[or]] and the third electrode (201) comprise … a coating based on mixed oxides of different noble metals selected from the group consisting of iridium, ruthenium, platinum, rhodium, tantalum and niobium, …, and wherein the coating provides the second electrode (401) with a reference potential exhibiting a limited potential drift during continuous polarization of the sensor”, since the first limitation only requires one or both of the second and third electrode comprises a coating, thus the coating can be on the third electrode and not on the second electrode. While the last limitation requires the coating on the second electrode. Thus it is unclear if the second electrode has the coating or not. Therefore, the scope of claim 12 is indefinite. Claims 13-15 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites “wherein the service electrode (301) is selectively connectable, individually or in groups, to one or more of the first electrode (101), the second electrode (401), or the third electrode (201) through a generator circuit”. Since there is only one service electrode, it is unclear if “in groups” requires more than one service electrode or “groups” refer to “more of” the first, second and third electrodes. Therefore, the scope of claim 14 is indefinite. Claim 15 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 7-9, filed 4/22/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered, and all prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues at pages 7-9 that Cappello does not disclose a sensor that includes one or both of a reference electrode and a counter-electrode coated with mixed metal oxides ("MMO") rather than just MMO-coated working electrodes. Cappello also does not disclose that the reference electrode and the counter-electrode have a substrate of titanium or tantalum substrate, so that the claimed arrangement provides a functional stabilization of the reference potential.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments are convincing and the previous prior art rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment. As outlined in the rejection under 112(b) above, it is unclear if it requires both the counter and reference electrodes made of titanium or tantalum with mixed metal oxides. Examiner notes that the new reference Xu et al. (CN108067099A) listed in conclusion teaches both the working and counter electrodes are made of titanium coated with iridium oxide and tantalum oxide, but does not teach wherein both the counter and reference electrodes are made of titanium coated with iridium oxide and tantalum oxide.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Xu et al. (CN108067099A) teaches wherein the working and counter electrodes are made of titanium coated with iridium oxide and tantalum oxide.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
