DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/5/2025 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 17, 18, and 22 are amended. Claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 1-6 and 8-22 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph rejection of claims 7 and 22 are withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claim 7 and amendment to claim 22.
Applicant argues that in contrast to the claimed invention, the location of transceiver coils 100 in Figs 10 and 11 of Malpas wrap around the entire holding area for the creature and is not specifically located and oriented based on the transmitter coil in the animal. Applicant argues that in Malpas, the inductive power data transfer that occurs at 160-200 kHz does not require taking such considerations (location and orientation of the communication coils) in contrast to inductive power and data transfer at near field frequencies (800-900 MHz) which use smaller coils requiring good alignment. As to the first argument, no information is provided within Malpas regarding the location and/or orientation of the transceiver coil on the cage relative to the transmitter coil on the sensor located on the animal for the embodiments shown in Figs. 10 and 11. Whether Malpas did or did not take into consideration the placement (location and orientation) of the transceiver coil relative to the transmitter coil in the animal is therefore one of speculation. One could argue on the flip side that configuration in Malpas was designed to be able to accommodate all orientations and positions of the sensor when inside the smaller compartments shown in Figs. 10 and 11.
As to the second part of the argument, the Office also looked to prior art references to assess design constraints of coils for inductive transfer between 160-200 kHz (LF) as well as between 800-900 MHz. Atrash et al., which is cited below in the new rejections, teaches:
“[0019] It has been determined that high inductance coils (micro-Henries) switched at low frequencies (hundreds of kHz) are effective for power transfer in applications such as battery chargers and power converters, for example. In order to transmit a high bandwidth of data effectively, however, several challenges arise. Tuning of the system is often required in order to optimize transmission frequency in the presence of parasitic elements that cause ringing or otherwise distort the data signal. Managing peak currents in the inductors, maintaining bandwidth in the presence of varying system conditions, e.g., changes in temperature, coil alignment, or distance between coils, and interference when sending and receiving data in the presence of inductive power transmission can also present problems. The inventors have determined that a reliable system for data and power transmission can be implemented, preferably using smaller inductance coils (10's to 100's of nano-Henries), switched at much higher frequencies (10's to 100's of MHz).”
In the above paragraph, Atrash finds that LF inductive power transfer can be effective. However, maintaining bandwidth during inductive transfer in this frequency range requires attention to coil alignment and/or distance between coils. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, such considerations are also important at the LF range cited in the Malpas. Atrash also confirms that inductive transfer of data and power at higher frequencies such as 100’s of MHz (e.g. 800-900 MHz range of near field) can be reliable using smaller coils. Thus, it would appear based on Atrash that such considerations like coil orientation and position would be a consideration requiring optimization as well at the LF range. In the new rejection below, modifying the primary reference in view of Malpas would be obvious as both require routine optimization of the coil setup making the last limitation requiring orientation and position considerations obvious in view of Atrash. Please see the new rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimanonart et al. (Adaptive RF power control for wireless implantable bio-sensing network to monitor untethered laboratory animal real-time biological signals, IEEE Sensors, 2008 conference) (hereinafter referred to as “C”) in view of Malpas et al (US 2007/0296393) and Besnoff et al., Near field modulated backscatter for in vivo biotelemetry, 2012 IEEE International Conference on RFID (RFID) and Atrash et al. (US 2011/0223859).
Regarding claim 1, C discloses a system, comprising:
a container configured to contain at least one animal (see container housing rodent in Figure 1 on page 1242), the container comprising a radiofrequency transceiver (see Adaptive RF Control Power Source & RF Transceiver + RF Transmitter Coil shown on the side and bottom of the cage in Fig. 1, this is also shown in the schematic drawing in Fig. 3 as the hardware on the left side which includes the RF Power Source, Data Decoder/Power Control, and External Receiver), the radiofrequency transceiver being a wireless radiofrequency transceiver (RF is wireless as shown in Fig. 3); and
a sensor configured to read at least one monitorable condition of the animal (see Fig. 3 implant microsystem and Fig. 5 bio-sensing electronics block) , the sensor configured to be attached to the animal (implantable indicates attachment), the sensor comprising a radiofrequency transmitter (in Fig. 3, the implant microsystem includes a transmission element shown on the lower right side of the Fig. for sending power and biosensor data; see also pg. 1241, right column, first paragraph – “Therefore, a miniaturized, implantable, wirelessly powered bio-monitoring system is highly desirable for advanced biological research. Integrating the powering, signal processing, and data transmission electronics into a single IC results in a distinct improvement in system power dissipation, size and weight” – this discusses the goal of the container system which is to not only transfer power but also data; see also pg. 1242, left column, first paragraph – “The digitized power sensing data together with real-time biological signals can be transmitted to a nearby receiver … The wireless implantable system consists of … data transmitting coil”; data transmitting coil is the transmission element previously noted in the bottom right of Fig. 3; Fig. 7 shows this as the antenna used with the VCO inductor), wherein the sensor is inductively powered by the radiofrequency transceiver (see Abstract discussion of inductive coupling that can provide energy), wherein said sensor is powered by on-chip inductive currents (this would be the result of the inductive power transfer, powering of the chip);
wherein the radiofrequency transmitter comprises transmitter coil (Abstract – “The implant unit consisting of a tuned 20-turn spiral coil is inductively coupled a 4 MHz RF energy source from an external power amplifier”); the radiofrequency transceiver comprises a transceiver coil (Fig. 1 RF power transmitter coil around base of the container, see also section II on page 1242 for details).
However, C does not disclose that the container contains the RF transceiver (i.e. is contained within the container that holds the laboratory animal, the transceiver coil in Chaimanonart is shown in Fig. 1 external to the container with a separate data receiving coil located on the top of the cage). However, Malpas et al. teach a mobile sensor system for monitoring animals in enclosures (see Abstract and [0092]). Malpas et al.’s enclosure uses at least one coil inside the container to inductively couple with a coil on a sensor (Abstract, [0001], [0011], [0060], and [0094] and Fig. 2). Embodiments are shown in Figures 10 and 11 that teach the placement of the transceiver in the cage. In Fig. 10, a coil 100 (transceiver) is shown wrapped around a tubular enclosure with an open end 104. This coil is therefore contained within the container. The transceiver is shown in Fig. 8 as the combo of at least 114/115/116 which can transmit power and receive data per [0105]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify C such that the power transmission and data reception coils are replaced with the one taught by Malpas for transmitting power and receiving data because Malpas teaches that this uses less power and prevents EMR problems. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the similarity in problems solved between the references and the instant application.
C also does not disclose wherein the transceiver coil is oriented and mounted in the container such that the transmitter coil is located where the transceiver coil is located when animal is at a source of food and/or drink such that there is near-field inductive coupling between the radiofrequency transceiver and the radiofrequency transmitter sufficient to communicate sensor data and transfer energy while the animal is eating and/or drinking, the transceiver coil of being oriented and positioned based on a location of the transmitter coil in the animal. In regards to the underlined limitations, the previous modification in view of Malpas results in the coil being oriented and mounted in the container at a food/water source (Malpas’s coil is located around a food/water source as noted in [0113]). When an animal is at the food/water source, the sensor on the animal will also be located where the at least one coil is located. Additionally, the transfer of power and data is made via LF inductive coupling (see at least the Abstract and [0001]). The rationale for modifying remains the same.
In regards to the orientation and positioning limitations of the transceiver coil relative to the transmitter coil, Malpas does not disclose any criteria for orienting or positioning the transceiver coil. The setup in Malpas appears to enable inductive coupling so long as the animal steps inside the smaller enclosure. Thus, it appears that Malpas required a robust design where the orientation and positioning of the transceiver coil achieves inductive coupling based on any possible location of the transmitter coil in the enclosure. Additionally, and alternatively, it was known in the arts that the design of inductive coils for power and data transmission can be sensitive to factors such as coil orientation and location. Atrash et al. teach inductive data communication systems and methods (Abstract). Atrash et al. teach that inductance coils operating at low frequencies (hundreds of kHz which is what Malpas discloses) are effective for power transfer but high bandwidth transmission of data using inductive coupling can require attention to factors such as coil alignment and distance between coils. Atrash et al. also teach that reliable data and power transmission via inductive coupling can also be achieved at much higher frequencies (10’s to 100’s of MHz – which includes 800-900 MHz) (see [0019]) but are still sensitive to issues such as coil alignment ([0027]). Thus, orienting and positioning the transceiver coil relative to the possible positions for the transmitter coil for inductive coupling requires optimization in view of the teachings of the Atrash et al. reference and would have been an obvious consideration in view of MPEP 2144.05 which notes that, “where 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).”
C also does not disclose the radiofrequency transmitter and the radiofrequency transceiver are configured to both communicate sensor data and transfer energy through near-field inductive coupling between 800 and 900 MHz, wherein the transceiver coil couple to the transmitter coil to power the sensor. C’s system transfers power from the transceiver to the sensor at 4 MHz and sends data from the sensor’s transmitter to the transceiver at 433 MHz. However, at the time of the filing of the invention, the use of near-field inductive coupling to communicate and transfer energy between 800 and 900 MHz was known. Besnoff teach in vivo biotelemetry using near field inductive coupling. Figure 1 shows an implanted sensor and an external receiver where power can be wirelessly transmitted to the implanted sensor and reflected power can be modulated to carry data back to the external transceiver. Besnoff teach that UHF near-field backscatter technique can be used to achieve high data transmission rates at lower power (see Abstract, UHF is between 300 MHz and 3000 MHz). Besnoff’s system is optimized for 902-928 MHz ISM band but was also tested and capable of operating at frequencies including 875 and 900 MHz (see table II). Coils are used as the antennas in the system (see for example section II.A ). Besnoff also disclose that the backscatter function, which modulates the operational frequency to transmit data back to the external device, operates also at the 875 and 900 MHz frequency (see pg. 139, right col., starting at the last paragraph and continuing over to the right col., the discussion where the backscatter signal was obtained at 875 and 900 MHz. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify C to use Besnoff’s technique for near-field inductive coupling for wireless power transfer and data transmission because Besnoff teaches that it works well for in vivo applications in rodents or other small animals and uses less power.
Regarding claim 2, C discloses wherein the sensor is configured to: (i) be attached to the animal by adhesive, or (ii) be implanted under the skin of the animal (the rejection of claim 1 above discusses the second option of an implanted sensor, [0095] notes that one embodiment includes an implanted biosensor, also [0001].
Regarding claim 3, C discloses wherein the at least one monitorable condition is selected from the group consisting of: position, gait, posture, temperature, oxygenation, local pH, and the concentration of glucose, lactate, glutamate, histamine, cortisol, NADH, NAD+, cholesterol, xanthine, sarcosine, spermine, glycolate, choline, urate, GABA, lysine, asparate, nicotine, alcohol, ethanol, D-amino acids, 6-hydroxynicotine, oxalate, putrescine, galactose, pyruvate, poly-amines, acyl coenzyme A, glutathione, glycerolphosphate, gamma-glutamyl-putrescine, nucleosides, adenosine, sodium, potassium, and glycine (see pg. 1241, left column, Introduction section where a need for particular types of measurements of caged mouse are needed including BP and temperature and other bio-potential signals).
Claim 17 is the method performed by the system of claim 1 and is rejected using the same argument above for claim 1. Claim 17 also includes a limitation for attaching or implanting the at least one sensor to the at least one laboratory animal (see Fig. 1 which shows an implanted sensor attached to a rodent) and detecting at least one monitorable condition in the at least one laboratory animal by the at least one radiofrequency transceiver communicating with the at least one radiofrequency transmitter (see claim 1 rejection regarding data collection from the bio-sensor).
Regarding claim 22, C disclose a system comprising:
a wireless radiofrequency transceiver configured to be attached to a container (Fig. 1 RF transceiver is attached to the side of the container), the container configured to contain at least one animal (see rodent in the container in Fig. 1); and
a sensor configured to read at least one monitorable condition of an animal in the container, the sensor configured to be attached to the animal, the sensor comprising a radiofrequency transmitter (see claim 1 rejection above which discloses how C anticipates each of these limitations),
wherein the radiofrequency transmitter comprises a transmitter coil (Abstract – “The implant unit consisting of a tuned 20-turn spiral coil is inductively coupled a 4 MHz RF energy source from an external power amplifier”); the radiofrequency transceiver comprises a transceiver one coil (Fig. 1 RF power transmitter coil around base of the container, see also section II on page 1242 for details).
C does not disclose that the RF transceiver is attached inside of the container though. However, C is modified in the same manner as claim 1 above with the Malpas et al. reference using the same obviousness argument.
C also does not disclose the radiofrequency transmitter and the radiofrequency transceiver are configured to both communicate sensor data and transfer energy through near-field inductive coupling between 800 and 900 MHz, wherein the transceiver coil couples to the transmitter coil to power the sensor. This limitation is rejected using the same argument in the claim 1 rejection for further modifying C in view of Besnoff.
The remaining limitations regarding one of the at least one sensor of a respective are rejected using the same arguments from claim 1 above.
Claims 4-6, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimanonart et al. in view of Malpas et al. and Besnoff et al. and Atrash et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kamath et al. (US 2007/0016381).
Regarding claim 4, C et al. do not disclose wherein the sensor comprises: a potentiostat, a working electrode (WE), a reference electrode (RE), and a counter electrode (CE). However, these features are common portable glucose sensors. For example, Kamath et al. teach a glucose sensor that was tested on rats ([0617]). The glucose sensor includes a WE, RE, CE ([0119] discussion of the sensing region), and a potentiostat ([0183]).
Regarding claim 5, Kamath et al. also teach wherein at least one electrochemically active enzyme or ionophore is coated onto at least one of: a top surface of the working electrode, a top surface of the reference electrode, and a top surface of the counter electrode, the at least one electrochemically active enzyme or ionophore selected to detect an ion or biological molecule in the at least one laboratory animal (see [0243] reference to enzyme domain 49 on an electrode, the enzyme glucose oxidase (GOX) used for detecting glucose).
Regarding claim 6, Kamath et al. also teach wherein the working electrode, the reference electrode, and the counter electrode comprise a material selected from the group consisting of: platinum, platinum oxide, gold, copper-copper sulfate, and palladium hydrogen (see [0375] – “In one embodiment, the three electrodes 1322 include a platinum working electrode, a platinum counter electrode, and a silver/silver chloride reference electrode”).
Regarding claim 16, Kamath et al. teach wherein the at least one electrochemically active enzyme or ionophore is a biorecognition element specific for an organic molecule selected from the group consisting of glucose (Kamath is directed to at least glucose sensing as discussed above), lactate, glutamate, histamine, cortisol, NADH, NAD+, cholesterol, xanthine, sarcosine, spermine, glycolate, choline, urate, GABA, lysine, asparate, nicotine, alcohol, ethanol, D-amino acids, 6-hydroxynicotine, oxalate, putrescine, galactose, pyruvate, poly-amines, acyl coenzyme A, glutathione, glycerolphosphate, gamma-glutamyl-putrescine, nucleosides, adenosine, and glycine.
In claims 4, 5, 6 and 16 above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify C to use a glucose sensor as taught by Kamath with the claimed features for sensing glucose levels in a rodent because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 18 is the method performed by the system of claim 1 executing the combined steps of claims 4 and 5 and is therefore rejected using the arguments for claims 4 and 5 above.
Claim 19 is the method performed by the system of claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same argument for claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimanonart et al. in view Malpas and Besnoff and Atrash et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kamath et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Klueh et al. (US 2007/0077265). Kamath et al. teach a glucose sensor that uses GOX as an active enzyme but does not teach that the GOX is in a glutaraldehyde/bovine serum albumin layer. However, Klueh et al. teach a glucose sensor tested in mice where the GOX is immobilized in a glutaraldehyde layer containing BSA (See [0146]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify C such that the glucose sensor uses a layer on the electrode that includes GOX on a glutaraldehyde BSA layer as taught by Klueh et al. for sensing glucose because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimanonart et al. in view of Malpas et al. and Besnoff and Atrash et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kamath et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Klueh et al. as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Gratzl et al. (US 2004/0180391). Klueh et al. do not teach wherein the glutaraldehyde/bovine serum albumin layer is covered with a filter layer configured to regulate and recycle oxygen required by an enzyme reaction involving the electrochemically active enzyme. However, Gratzl teach a glucose biosensor that includes an electrode membrane layer that is a diffusion layer that permits diffusion of oxygen and products of the enzyme reaction ([0187] - “The first layer 82, in direct contact with an electrode 80 or optical guide 44, as noted above, is preferably a diffuse layer for products, and eventual co -enzyme(s) (e.g., oxygen) of the enzyme reaction(s)” and [0283] - “In another aspect, a multilayer structure, based on a combination of CA, CAP, or other matrices, to perform a number of different "tasks" is provided. The first layer in direct contact with an electrode or optical guide is a diffuse layer for products, and eventual co -enzyme(s) (e.g., oxygen) of the enzyme reaction(s)”; here “regulate” was interpreted as the layer’s diffusion characteristics specific to oxygen while recycle was interpreted as the simply keeping the oxygen in the layer or at least very least permitting oxygen into the layer appears to be indicated). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify C to use glucose sensor with the claimed layer characteristics as taught by Gratzl et al. for sensing glucose because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Note, the identified layers in Gratzl were interpreted in the aggregate as the claimed filter layer in claims 10-12.
Regarding claim 10, Gratzl et al. also teach wherein the filter layer comprises polyurethane and is configured to improve selectivity of the at least one sensor, by excluding interferent molecules (see [0164] “Optionally, a third layer 86 is a layer of polyurethane. The thickness of the third layer is preferably about preferably about 2-50.mu. in thickness, more preferably, about 5 microns. The polyurethane layer 86 is used to regulate diffusion of glucose, leading to the improvement of linearity and dynamic range of probe responses”). The rationale for modifying remains the same.
Regarding claim 11, Gratzl et al. also teach wherein the interferent molecules are selected from the group consisting of: acetaminophen, urate, cysteine, bilirubin and ascorbic acid (see [0183] where the polyurethane layer “act as protective membranes to prevent electrochemical or other interference from positively charged and negatively charged species such as heavy metal ions, cathecol amines, and ascorbates, respectively”). The rationale for modifying remains the same.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimanonart et al. in view Malpas and Besnoff and Atrash et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Fisher et al. (US 2010/0222686). C does not disclose wherein the radiofrequency transmitter is one of a plurality of radiofrequency transmitters, each transmitter of the plurality of radiofrequency transmitters being individually identifiable by a code transmitted to the at least one radiofrequency transceiver. However, Fisher teaches a system for monitoring multiple animal cages, each with data transmission capabilities between the cage and a central monitor (Fig. 1 shows a general overview of the system, each receiver 116x is connected to a sensor, thus there are multiple 116x’s and each have an RF transmitter for sending data). The Office takes official notice that individually identifiable RF transmitters are known in the art as having multiple sensing units in the system as shown and taught by Fisher et al. would necessarily require a method of distinguishing incoming transmitted data. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify C to apply to multiple caged system such as that taught by Fisher and to use the claimed identifier in view of the Official Notice taken when transmitting data because it expands monitoring capabilities where there could be multiple experimental conditions in each container and helps parse data from different sources. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because such identification codes are known and used in many communication standards.
Note, Malpas et al. do note that the pickup may include multiple coils for ascertaining position relative to the inductive power coil, but it is not expressly stated whether each includes a code.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimanonart et al. in view Malpas and Besnoff et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kamath et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2009/0243584). C, Malpas, and Kamath et al. do not disclose or suggest wherein at least one of the top surface of the working electrode, the top surface of the reference electrode, and the top surface of the counter electrode comprises nanopillars, and the at least one electrochemically active enzyme or ionophore is coated onto the nanopillars. However, Zhang et al. teach “[0011] In one aspect, the present invention provides nanopillar enhanced electrodes for glucose detection. The electrodes are defined by an active three-dimensional (3D) surface formed by arrays of nanopillars standing on a flat support base. In one embodiment, the outer surface of the nanopillars is further functionalizes with glucose oxidase through either self assembly monolayer (SAM) molecules or polypyrrole polymer.” It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify the glucose sensing electrodes of Kamath to include the claimed pillar structure with enzyme coating as taught by Zhang et al. for sensing glucose because the extra surface area may be beneficial in terms of signal to noise ratio. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the overlapping subject matters (glucose/analyte sensing).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimonnart et al. in view of Malpas et al. and Besnoff and Atrash et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view Kamath et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Heikenfeld et al. (US 9867539).
Regarding claim 14, C, Malpas et al., and Kamath et al. do not disclose wherein the at least one electrochemically active enzyme or ionophore is an ionophore selected from the group consisting of Na+, Ca2+, K+, Mg+, H+, Zn+, Mn2+, Cu2+, Cl, P043-, HP042-, H2PO4-, C032-, HC03, and OH-. However, Heikenfeld et al. teach a sensor for detecting sweat (Abstract) that includes Na+ selective ionophore membrane (see col. 12, lies 45-64). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify C to include a sweat sensor with the claimed ionophore limitations as taught by Heikenfeld et al. for sensing sweat because sweat could be used to detect distress in animals. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the overlapping subject matter (electrode sensing applications).
Regarding claim 15, Heikenfeld et al. teach wherein the at least one electrochemically active enzyme or ionophore is configured to selectively absorb at least one ion selected from the group consisted of K+, Na+, H+, OH-, and CE (see col. 12, lines 45-64). The rationale for modifying remains the same.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimanonart et al. in view of Malpas and Besnoff and Atrash et al. as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Kamath et al. as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Heikenfeld et al. (US 9867539). Method 20 is rejected using the same arguments for modifying C in view of Kamath and Heikenfeld used for the rejections of claims 14 and 16 respectively.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimanonart et al. in view of Malpas et al. and Besnoff and Atrash et al. as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Kamath et al. as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2009/0243584). Claim 21 is rejected using the same argument for further modifying C in view of Zhang in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6 and 8-22 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tho Q. Tran whose telephone number is (571)270-1892. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/THO Q TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791