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
Claims 3 and 4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/07/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0055], line 2, “an inverting input coupled to a reference voltage VREF” is inconsistent with the drawing (FIG. 4 shows VBIAS2 at the inverting input).
In [0056], line 16, “the second amplifier 306” should be -- the second amplifier 406-- to be consistent in the reference number.
In [0058], line 2, “the second amplifier 306” should be -- the second amplifier 406-- to be consistent in the reference number.
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 16-21, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 2, “the value” should be --a value-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 16, lines 2-3, “couple the first input of the measurement circuitry the first electrode to the first electrode” should be --couple the first input of the measurement circuitry to the first electrode-- to correct a typo.
In claim 27, line 4, “or a mobile telephone” should be --[[or ]]a mobile telephone-- for better clarity.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 13, 15, 16, 22, 23, and 25-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 19255238 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims teach substantially the features of the above indicated claims. Any differences are obvious variations or well-known.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 8, 9, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 19255238 in view of KANOUN (US 20210262977 A1). The copending claims teach substantially the features of the current claims. Any differences are obvious in view of the above cited reference (the prior art rejections below are incorporated herein by reference to address the differences).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites “An electronic device, comprising the circuitry of claim 1.” The electronic device includes only the circuitry of claim 1. Therefore, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KANOUN (US 20210262977 A1; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, KANOUN teaches Circuitry for processing an analyte signal obtained from an electrochemical cell (i.e., “electronics for electrochemical instrumentation”; see [0002] and FIG. 1), the circuitry comprising:
measurement circuitry (i.e., “front-end portion 120”, “front-end portion 220”, “current-conveyer portion 130”) having a first input coupled to a first electrode of the electrochemical cell (i.e., “the front-end portion 220 is coupled to a work electrode (we) of the cell 201”; see [0023]), the measurement circuitry (i.e., 120 and 130 in FIG. 1) configured to convert the analyte signal at the first electrode to a first analog output signal (see the output from 130 in FIG. 1);
a first analog-to-digital converter (ADC) (i.e., “sensing/digitizing portion 140”) having an first ADC input for receiving the first analog output signal, the first ADC configured to convert the first analog output signal to a first digital output signal at a first ADC output (i.e., “sense a current received from the current-conveyer portion 130 and to digitize the sensed current (i.e., a sensing/digitizing portion 140)”; see [0024] and FIG. 1);
drive circuitry (i.e., “an offset portion 150”; see [0026]); and
control circuitry, wherein the circuitry is operable in one or more of a calibration mode and a measurement mode (i.e., “The change between the normal configuration and the calibration configuration (and vice versa) can be accomplished using switches and control signals. The control signals may be triggered by a user or by an event”; see [0039]),
wherein, in the calibration mode (i.e., “FIG. 3B is a schematic block diagram of the potentiostat 300 in configuration for calibration”; see [0037]), the drive circuitry is configured to apply a calibration signal (i.e., ioff_rep signal) at the first input of the measurement circuitry (see replica offset current source 353 applying the ioff_rep signal in FIG. 3B), the control circuitry configured to calibrate the measurement circuitry based on the first analog output signal or the first digital output signal responsive to the calibration signal (i.e., “In the calibration configuration, the work electrode current (iwe) is maintained by the first feedback amplifier 321 which is tied to the upper rail voltage (vdd) and to the replica offset current source 353 of the current copier 351. As a result, a digital signal corresponding to ioff (i.e., [ioff]) can be generated by the clocked dual-slope ADC 341… A calibration may then be performed ( e.g., to obtain/store a calibration factor corresponding to the measured offset)”; see [0038]-[0039]), and
wherein, in the measurement mode (i.e., “The potentiostat of FIG. 3A is in a configuration for normal operation (i.e., iwe measurement)”; see [0036]), the drive circuitry is configured to apply an offset signal (i.e., ioff signal) at the first input of the measurement circuitry (see offset current source 354 applying the ioff signal in FIG. 3A), the control circuitry configured to control the offset signal to maintain the first analog output signal or the first digital output signal within a threshold range (i.e., “the offset may improve performance (e.g, linearity) of the clocked dual-slope ADC”; see [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, KANOUN further teaches:
wherein calibration of the measurement circuitry comprises adjusting a gain of the measurement circuitry (i.e., “To extract the gain of the potentiostat during calibration… The measured value of the ADC-reference current (iadc) represents the gain of the potentiostat”; see [0044]; “The ADC-reference current, iadc, can then be trimmed to its best temperature coefficient, measured, and stored. The measured value of the ADC-reference current (iadc) represents the gain of the potentiostat”; see [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, KANOUN further teaches:
wherein calibration of the measurement circuitry comprises setting or adjusting the offset signal used in the measurement mode (i.e., “it can be desirable to measure ioff as a calibration step in the determination of the work electrode current, and to remove the calibrated ioff after digitization. Accordingly, the potentiostat 300 includes offset calibration circuitry to measure the offset current”; see [0034]; “FIG. 3B is a schematic block diagram of the potentiostat 300 in configuration for calibration… As a result, the output current (iout) measured by the sensing/digitizing portion 140 only includes only the offset current (i.e., iout=ioff)”; see [0037]).
Regarding claim 11, KANOUN further teaches:
wherein, in the measurement mode, the measurement circuitry is configured to apply a fixed gain to the analyte signal (i.e., “The front-end portion 220 can include an amplifier (A1) and a transistor (MPG) that are configured to set a work electrode voltage (vwe) equal to a set voltage (vdac) and to conduct the work electrode current (iwe)”; see [0023]; alternative, “the output current (iout) is the work electrode current combined (i.e., sum, difference) with the offset current”; see [0031]; note that the offset current is fixed by the current source).
Regarding claim 22, KANOUN further teaches a system comprising:
the circuitry of claim 1 (see claim 1 above); and
the electrochemical cell (i.e., “electrochemical cell”; see [0006]).
Regarding claim 25, KANOUN further teaches:
wherein the electrochemical cell comprises an anode (i.e., the “re” or ground node of cell 201 in FIG. 2A or 2B) and a cathode (i.e., the WE node of cell 201 in FIG. 2A or 2B), wherein the first electrode is the cathode (i.e., WE).
Regarding claim 26, KANOUN further teaches An electronic device, comprising the circuitry of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 27, KANOUN further teaches:
wherein the device comprises one of a continuous glucose monitor, a mobile computing device, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a games console, a remote control device, a home automation controller or a domestic appliance, a toy, a robot, an audio player, a video player, or a mobile telephone, and a smartphone (i.e., “glucose sensing”; see [0003]).
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.
Claims 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANOUN in view of LEDERMANN et al. (WO 2020011652 A1; machine translation provided; hereinafter “LEDERMANN”).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
KANOUN does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the drive circuitry comprises a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) having a DAC output coupled to the first input of the measurement circuitry.
But LEDERMANN teaches:
a DAC as a current source (i.e., “. A current source that drives a continuous, adjustable current is also called a DAC current source”; see translation p. 2, bottom section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KANOUN in view of LEDERMANN to incorporate a DAC for the current source for generating the offset current such that the drive circuitry comprises a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) having a DAC output coupled to the first input of the measurement circuitry, as claimed. The rationale would be to provide the flexibility to adjust the level of offset current using control signals according to the type of electrochemical cell without redesigning the current source.
Regarding claim 15, as a result of modification applied to claim 13 above, KANOUN in view of LEDERMANN further teaches:
wherein the DAC is a current DAC (i.e., see LEDERMANN, translation p2, bottom section) and wherein the calibration signal is a calibration current (see KANOUN showing replica offset current source 353 applying the ioff_rep signal in FIG. 3B).
Regarding claim 16, KANOUN further teaches:
switching circuitry configured to selectively couple the first input of the measurement circuitry the first electrode to the first electrode, the switching circuitry controllable by the control circuitry (i.e., “The change between the normal configuration and the calibration configuration (and vice versa) can be accomplished using switches and control signals. The control signals may be triggered by a user or by an event”; see [0039] and the switching between FIG. 3A (normal) and 3B (calibration)).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANOUN in view of Ligouras et al. (US 20230194451 A1; hereinafter “Ligouras”).
Regarding claim 23, KANOUN further teaches: wherein:
the first electrode is a first working electrode of the electrochemical cell (i.e., “coupled to a work electrode (we) of the cell 201”; see [0023]).
KANOUN does not explicitly disclose: wherein:
the electrochemical cell comprising a counter electrode.
But Ligouras teaches:
an electrochemical cell comprising a counter electrode (i.e., “a Counter Electrode (CE)”; see [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KANOUN in view of Ligouras to incorporate the electrochemical cell of Ligouras such that the electrochemical cell comprising a counter electrode, as claimed. The rationale would be to adapt the measurement system to a known type of electrochemical cell.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10, 12, 14, and 17-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (pending resolution of any other objections above).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 5-7, 10, 12, 14, and 17-21 distinguish over the closest prior art of record for the further limitations recited in the claims. Note that claim 5 recites the further limitation: “a second ADC having a second ADC input, wherein the first ADC has a higher bandwidth than the second ADC.” KANOUN does not require a specific second ADC as claimed. KANOUN’s calibration mode and measurement mode work only with one ADC. It is unclear how the calibration and offset signals will be determined and applied if a second ADC is added. The other prior art of record does not teach or suggest to implement the second ADC as claimed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Soleymani et al. (US 20250334540 A1) teaches a portable biosensing readout system, involving a transimpedance amplifier (TIA) and an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) with a built-in low-pass filter (LPF).
TABASSUM (US 20250283846 A1) teaches a flexible plant sensor, involving a trans-impedance amplifier for converting an analog current measured across a working electrode and the counter electrodes of the sensor into a voltage signal that was read by an ADC.
KANOUN et al. (US 20230284926 A1) teaches a sensor circuit includes a transimpedance amplifier, a feedback network, a calibration circuit, and a readout circuit. The readout circuit includes a conversion stage which has an ADC. The calibration circuit includes switches and two current sources.
Reay et al. ("An Integrated CMOS Potentiostat for Miniaturized Electroanalytical Instrumentation" ISSCC94 / SESSION 9 I SENSORS AND DISPLAY ELECTRONICS I PAPER TA 9.5, IEEE 1994) teaches circuitry for a electrochemical sensor, involving an integrating DAC to set the voltage between a working electrode and a reference electrode. The working electrode current is measured with a current-input dual-slope ADC with an on-chip reference current source.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857