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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species C in the reply filed on 2025-10-23 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration the restriction has been withdrawn and all claims not elected have been rejoined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, lines 9-15 claim the programmable analog subsystem exists in a first and a second configuration but does not elaborate on how these two mutually exclusive configurations exist together. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this limitation such that any device that contains an electrochemical cell with the electrodes as claimed connected to a programmable interface in either configuration claimed will be sufficient to read on this claim.
Additionally, Regarding Claim 1, the connection between the first electrode interface and the second electrode interface as claimed in lines 10-11 is indefinite as it is unclear, from the figures, how the first and second electrodes are to be connected. Figures 7 and 8 show a connection from one electrode interface to another but it is unclear how that specific output (for example, EI2A OUT, in Figure 7) is chosen among the plurality of inputs to the electrode interface as shown in Figure 2. No selection mechanism is shown in Figure 2 for how the plurality of inputs are chosen. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this claim such that any connection between to electrode interfaces is sufficient to read on this claim.
Additionally, Regarding Claim 1, the programmable electrode interfaces in lines 7 and 8, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Claim 2 is directed to, a first and a second configuration but does not elaborate on how these two mutually exclusive configurations exist together. No structural element of the claim is capable to cause either configuration to occur. It is unclear from the claim what structural feature toggles between these two configurations. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this limitation such that any device that contains an electrochemical cell with the electrodes as claimed connected to a programmable interface in at least one of the configurations as claimed will be sufficient to read on this claim.
Additionally, Regarding Claim 2, the connection between the first electrode interface and the second electrode interface as claimed is indefinite as it is unclear, from the figures, how the first and second electrodes are to be connected. Figures 7 and 8 show a connection from one electrode interface to another but it is unclear how that specific output (for example, EI2A OUT, in Figure 7) is chosen among the plurality of inputs to the electrode interface as shown in Figure 2. No selection mechanism is shown in Figure 2 for how the plurality of inputs are chosen. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this claim such that any connection between to electrode interfaces is sufficient to read on this claim.
Regarding Claim 3, the connection between the first electrode interface and the third electrode interface as claimed is indefinite as it is unclear, from the figures, how the first and third electrodes are to be connected. Figures 7 and 8 show a connection from one electrode interface to another but it is unclear how that specific output (for example, EI2A OUT, in Figure 7) is chosen among the plurality of inputs to the electrode interface as shown in Figure 2. No selection mechanism is shown in Figure 2 for how the plurality of inputs are chosen. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this claim such that any connection between to electrode interfaces is sufficient to read on this claim.
Claim 3 is directed to, a third programmable electrode interface configured with an input connected to an output of the first programmable electrode interface. It is unclear how the first programmable electrode interface is to be connected as the connections of the first programmable electrode interface exists in two mutually exclusive configurations as stated in claim 1. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this limitation such that any device that contains an electrochemical cell with the electrodes as claimed connected to a programmable interface in either configuration claimed will be sufficient to read on this claim, as long as three electrode interfaces are present.
Regarding Claim 4, the programmable electrode interfaces in lines 6 and 9, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Claim 4 is directed to, a third and fourth programmable electrode interface configured in the first configuration. However, it is unclear from claim 1 how the first configuration exists simultaneously with the second configuration. Therefore, it is unclear how the third and fourth programmable interfaces can be configured in the first configuration. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this limitation such that any device that contains an electrochemical cell with the electrodes as claimed connected to a programmable interface in either configuration claimed will be sufficient to read on this claim, as long as four electrode interfaces are present.
Regarding Claim 5, the programmable electrode interfaces in line 6, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claim 6, the connection between the third electrode interface and the fourth electrode interface as claimed is indefinite as it is unclear, from the figures, how the fourth and third electrodes are to be connected. Figures 7 and 8 show a connection from one electrode interface to another but it is unclear how that specific output (for example, EI2A OUT, in Figure 7) is chosen among the plurality of inputs to the electrode interface as shown in Figure 2. No selection mechanism is shown in Figure 2 for how the plurality of inputs are chosen. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this claim such that any connection between to electrode interfaces is sufficient to read on this claim.
Regarding Claim 6, the programmable electrode interfaces in line 5, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claim 7, the connection between the first/second electrode interface and the fifth/sixth electrode interface as claimed is indefinite as it is unclear, from the figures, how the first/second and fifth/sixth electrodes are to be connected. Figures 7 and 8 show a connection from one electrode interface to another but it is unclear how that specific output (for example, EI2A OUT, in Figure 7) is chosen among the plurality of inputs to the electrode interface as shown in Figure 2. No selection mechanism is shown in Figure 2 for how the plurality of inputs are chosen. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this claim such that any connection between to electrode interfaces is sufficient to read on this claim.
Regarding Claim 7, the programmable electrode interfaces in lines 3 and 6, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Claim 7 is directed to, a fifth and sixth programmable electrode interface configured in the first configuration. However, it is unclear from claim 1 how the first configuration exists simultaneously with the second configuration. Therefore, it is unclear how the third and fourth programmable interfaces can be configured in the first configuration. Further, it is unclear how the first programmable electrode interface is to be connected as the connections of the first programmable electrode interface exists in two mutually exclusive configurations as stated in claim 1. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this limitation such that any device that contains an electrochemical cell with the electrodes as claimed connected to a programmable interface in either configuration claimed will be sufficient to read on this claim, as long as six electrode interfaces are present.
Regarding Claim 8, the programmable electrode interfaces in line 6, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Claim 8 is directed to, a third programmable electrode interface configured in the second configuration. However, it is unclear from claim 1 how the second configuration exists simultaneously with the first configuration. Therefore, it is unclear how the third programmable interfaces can be configured in the second configuration. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this limitation such that any device that contains an electrochemical cell with the electrodes as claimed connected to a programmable interface in either configuration claimed will be sufficient to read on this claim, as long as four electrode interfaces are present.
Regarding Claim 9, the programmable electrode interfaces in line 5, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claim 10, the programmable electrode interfaces in lines 5 and 6, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Claim 11 recites, “a guard electrode adjacent one of the first working electrode or the guard electrode” in lines 6-7. It is unclear how a guard electrode can be adjacent to itself. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this limitation based on the Figures to read -- a guard electrode adjacent one of the first working electrode or the reference electrode --.
Regarding Claim 11, the programmable electrode interfaces in line 9, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claim 12, the programmable electrode interfaces in lines 4 and 6, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claim 13, the programmable electrode interfaces in lines 2 and 3, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claim 14, the programmable electrode interfaces in line 3, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claim 15, the programmable electrode interfaces in line 5, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claim 16, the programmable electrode interfaces in lines 2 and 4, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claim 17, the programmable electrode interfaces in line 2, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claim 18, the programmable electrode interfaces in lines 2 and 4, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claim 19, the programmable electrode interfaces in lines 2 and 4, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claim 20, the programmable electrode interfaces in lines 2 and 4, as best understood from the disclosure, are indefinite as it is unclear how several of the plurality of inputs in Figure 2 are connected. Figure 2 shows muxes 206, 208, and 210 as having inputs P0:P7. It is unclear from the figures and the disclosure how/where these inputs are connected. Inputs P3-P6 are not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build the electrode interface as it is unknown where the inputs are to be connected to.
Regarding Claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20, these claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qu et al. (US-20180321302-A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Qu teaches connecting a first programmable electrode interface to one of a first working electrode, a control electrode, a reference electrode, or a guard electrode of an electrochemical cell in a first configuration (Can be seen in Figure 1); and connecting the first programmable electrode interface to a different one of the first working electrode, the control electrode, the reference electrode, or the guard electrode in a second configuration (Para [0038] teaches the electrochemical sensor (102) having an additional electrode and nodes N and T of Fig. 1 can be alternatively connected to the additional electrodes).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu in view of Washizu (US-20200033292-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Qu teaches an electrochemical cell comprising (Fig 1: electrochemical sensor, 102):
a first working electrode (Fig 1: labelled as SE);
a control electrode (Fig 1: labelled as CE);
a reference electrode (Fig 1: labelled as RE); and
a programmable analog subsystem (Refer to annotated Fig 1 of Qu), comprising:
a first programmable electrode interface (Refer to annotated Fig 1 of Qu); and
a switch matrix (Fig 1: 128) configured to connect the first programmable electrode interface to one of the first working electrode, the control electrode, the reference electrode, or the guard electrode in a first configuration (Shown in Figure 1 as connected to nodes N and T) and to connect the first programmable electrode interface to a different one of the first working electrode, the control electrode, the reference electrode, or the guard electrode in a second configuration (Para [0038] teaches the electrochemical sensor (102) having an additional electrode and nodes N and T of Fig. 1 can be alternatively connected to the additional electrodes).
Wu does not teach a guard electrode adjacent one of the first working electrode or the guard electrode and a controller . However, Washizu teaches a guard electrode adjacent one of the first working electrode (Fig 7 shows shield casing, 110, surrounding and therefore adjacent to the electrode, 106) or the guard electrode; and a controller (Fig 6: calibration controller, 250). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrochemical sensor of Qu to incorporate the guard electrode and controller of Washizu. A motivation for this modification is that the guard electrode can provide shielding from the effects of noise (Washizu – Para [0074]) and controllers may allow for the programming from a PC as taught in Washizu in Para [0044].
PNG
media_image1.png
635
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Qu
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858