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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2026-04-29 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 1-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 were amended to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections made in the previous office action. These amendments are acceptable and all 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Looney et al. (US-20200408714-A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Looney teaches a method, comprising: controlling routing circuitry (Para [0014] teaches programmable switches within the control integrated circuit 120) to connect a first amplifier of 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 Annotated Figure 1 of Looney as bolded line showing connection); and
controlling the routing circuitry to connect the first amplifier of 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 (Can be seen in Annotated Figure 1 of Looney as bolded line showing connection).
PNG
media_image1.png
802
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Looney
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 Looney in view of Washizu (US-20200033292-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Looney teaches an electrochemical cell comprising (Fig 1: electrochemical sensor, 110):
a first working electrode (Fig 1: working electrode, 116);
a control electrode (Fig 1: counter electrode, 112);
a reference electrode (Fig 1: reference electrode, 114); and
a programmable analog subsystem (Fig 1: control integrated circuit 120), comprising:
routing circuitry (Fig 1: circuitry within control integrated circuit, 120);
a first programmable electrode interface comprising a first amplifier connected to the routing circuitry (Fig 1 shows amplifier, 128, connected to routing circuitry and connected to at least one programmable switch within the routing circuitry); and
programmable switches (Para [0014] teaches programmable switches within the control integrated circuit 120) configured to control the routing circuitry to connect the first amplifier to one of the first working electrode, the control electrode, the reference electrode, or the guard electrode in a first configuration (Can be seen in Annotated Figure 1 of Looney as bolded line showing connection) and to control the routing circuitry to connect the first amplifier to a different one of the first working electrode, the control electrode, the reference electrode, or the guard electrode in a second configuration (Can be seen in Annotated Figure 1 of Looney as bolded line showing connection).
Looney does not explicitly 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].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, the inclusion of the limitations “in a first configuration, the controller is configured to control the routing circuitry to connect the first programmable electrode interface to the first working electrode and to connect the second programmable electrode interface is to one of the first programmable electrode interface or the second working electrode, and
in a second configuration, the controller is configured to control the routing circuitry to connect the first programmable electrode interface to the first working electrode and to connect the second programmable electrode interface to the first guard electrode.”
Regarding Claims 2-10, these claims depend from claim 1 and are therefore allowable for the same reasons.
The closest prior art is Qu et al. (US-20180321302-A1) and Looney et al. (US-20200408714-A1). These arts teach first and second programmable electrode interfaces but do not teach that the programmable electrode interfaces connect in the configurations are described above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 12-16 and 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 12, the inclusion of the limitation “the controller is configured to configure the second amplifier in a programmable gain amplifier configuration with an input connected to an output of the first programmable electrode interface.”
Regarding Claim 13, the inclusion of the limitation “the controller is configured to control the routing circuitry to connect the second amplifier to the guard electrode in a guard electrode driver configuration.”
Regarding Claim 14, the inclusion of the limitation “the controller is configured to configure the third amplifier in a potentiostat configuration and control the routing circuitry to connect the third amplifier to the reference electrode and the control electrode.”
Regarding Claims 15-16, these claims depend from claim 14 and are therefore allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 18, the inclusion of the limitations “configuring a second amplifier of a second programmable electrode interface in a programmable gain amplifier configuration; and controlling the routing circuitry to connect an input of the second amplifier to an output of the first amplifier.”
Regarding Claim 19, the inclusion of the limitation “controlling the routing circuitry to connect a second programmable electrode interface configured in a guard electrode driver configuration to the guard electrode.”
Regarding Claim 20, this claim depends from claim 19 and are therefore allowable for the same reasons.
The closest prior art is Qu et al. (US-20180321302-A1) and Looney et al. (US-20200408714-A1). These arts teach first and second programmable electrode interfaces but do not teach that the programmable electrode interfaces connect in the configurations are described above.
It is these features found in the claim, as they are claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights