DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on April 3, 2026. Claims 1-13, 15-17, and 21-29 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
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(s) 8-9 is/are 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.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the electrocatalytic film comprises two or more layers, wherein the two or more layers comprise a first layer adjacent to the surface of the at least one working electrode, wherein the first layer comprises the plurality of electrocatalytic centers, and wherein a second layer is an MIP layer over the first layer, and wherein the second layer comprises the plurality of shape-selective cavities”, which does not further limit claim 1 on which it depends because it contradicts claim 1 that recites the electrocatalytic film is a homogeneous layer comprising a MIP layer and a plurality of electrocatalytic centers immobilized within the polymer matrix of the MIP layer.
Dependent claim 9 is rejected due to it dependency on rejected base claim 8.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10, 12, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Bhansali (US 2017/0227486) in view of Sales (EP 3708360), and further in view of Sun (W. Sun, Molecularly imprinted polymer containing Fe(III) catalysts for specific substrate recognition, Chinese Journal of Catalysis 2013(34), pp. 1589-98), supported by Belbruno (US 2014/0242601) as an evidence.
Regarding claim 1, Bhansali teaches an electrochemical biosensor (Fig. 3; ¶39: a MIP biosensor), comprising:
at least one working electrode (¶13: sensing electrode); and
an electrocatalytic film (¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix; a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures; here both of them are together are deemed to be the recited electrocatalytic film on the electrode surface) on a surface of the at least one working electrode (¶13: immobilized atop a sensing electrode; modifying the electrode surface), wherein the electrocatalytic film comprises a molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) layer (¶13: MIP matrix), wherein the MIP layer comprises:
a plurality of shape-selective cavities (Fig. 3), wherein an individual shape-selective cavity is configured to selectively bind a template molecule (¶61: the MIP can be a crosslinked polymeric network formed in the presence of an imprinting compound or "template molecule," such that the template molecule is later removed leaving a matrix that is able to recognize and bind to the template molecule via a complementary binding cavity; "complementarity" indicates that the cavity left behind in the MIP matrix has a size matching the template molecule, as well as binding sites that have affinity toward functional groups present in the template molecule), and
a plurality of electrocatalytic centers (¶13: a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures), wherein an individual electrocatalytic center of the plurality of electrocatalytic centers is adjacent to an individual shape-selective cavity of the plurality of shape-selective cavities (¶73: depositing a plurality of metallic nanoscopic structures onto the surface of the conductive electrode prior to the electrochemical polymerization; thus the plurality of metallic nanoscopic structures on the surface of the electrode would be adjacent to each of the complementary binding cavities of the MIP matrix immobilized atop the electrode),
wherein the shape-selective cavities having binding affinity for template molecules that is greater than binding affinity for chemical analogs of the template molecules (as evidenced by Belbruno ¶3: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP is a polymer that is formed in the presence of a template or target analyte molecule producing a complementary cavity that is left behind in the MIP when the template is removed, and thus the MIP demonstrates affinity for the original template molecule over other related and analogous molecules).
Bhansali fails to teach an electrically insulative substrate.
However, Sales teach a device for analysing biomolecules (¶3) using a tailored molecularly-imprinted polymer for a given biomolecule (¶64). The device uses screen-printed technology consisting of layer-by-layer depositions of ink (i.e., ¶6: screen-printed electrodes SPEs) upon a solid substrate defining the geometry of the intended sensor (¶8), which is mostly plastic, as PET or PVC (¶12). Thus, Sales teaches the electrodes on an electrically insulative substrate (¶12: plastic).
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 Bhansali by incorporating an electrically insulative substrate as taught by Sales because the substrate would provide a support and defines the geometry of the sensor (¶¶8, 12). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Bhansali fails to teach the electrocatalytic film is a single homogeneous layer comprising the MIP layer and the plurality of electrocatalytic centers immobilized within the MIP layer.
However, Sun teaches a series of molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) containing equal amounts of iron(III) were prepared by the polymerization of acrylamide and ethylene dimethacrylate in the presence of the template of NBA and a FeCl3 complex ([Abstract]), as shown in Scheme 1 (p. 1590). Metal ions are introduced into the MIP imprinted cavities for the fabrication of molecularly imprinted catalysts (p. 1589, col. 2, last para.), wherein the Fe3+ ions are immobilized inside the cavities of the MIP matrix after the template molecule was completely extracted and removed (Scheme 1; p. 1590, bridging para. of col. 1-2), and thus making the MIP layer a homogeneous one.
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 Bhansali by combining the layer of the metallic nanoscopic structures and the MIP layer into a homogenous layer as taught by Sun because it is known in the art that metal ions are commonly introduced into the MIP imprinted cavities for the fabrication of molecularly imprinted catalysts (p. 1589, col. 2, last para.). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results. In another word, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Bhansali teaches wherein the plurality of electrocatalytic centers comprises a non-biological catalyst (¶13: nanoscopic metallic structures).
Regarding claim 3, Bhansali teaches wherein the non-biological catalyst comprises: a single-atom catalyst comprising copper (¶21: the nanoscopic metallic structures comprise materials selected from copper).
Regarding claim 4, Bhansali teaches wherein the metal atom is a copper atom (¶21: the nanoscopic metallic structures comprise materials selected from copper).
Regarding claim 6, Bhansali in view of Sales and Sun teaches wherein the electrocatalytic film (Bhansali, ¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix; the nanoscopic metallic structures) comprises a single layer, and wherein the single layer comprises the MIP layer and the plurality of electrocatalytic centers immobilized within the MIP layer (Sun, Scheme 1).
Regarding claim 10, Bhansali teaches wherein the at least one working electrode comprises carbon (¶94: a planar screen-printed carbon working electrode).
Regarding claim 12, Bhansali teaches wherein the MIP layer comprises at least one monomer, wherein the at least one monomer is pyrrole (¶93: pyrrole monomer).
Regarding claim 27, Bhansali teaches wherein the individual electrocatalytic center is configured to exchange charge with an analyte molecule within the individual shape-selective cavity (¶110: the ions insert easily into the positively charged PPy film and are thus involved in rapid electron transfer kinetics; ¶111: Fig. 5: when the cortisol was effectively loaded onto the PPy matrix, it hinders the electrochemical response).
Further, the designation “configured to exchange charge with an analyte molecule within the individual shape-selective cavity” is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 28, Bhansali in view of Sales and Sun teaches wherein the individual electrocatalytic center comprises a single-atom catalyst (Bhansali, ¶21: the nanoscopic metallic structures comprise materials selected from copper) anchored or coordinated within a polymer matrix (Sun, Scheme 1: Fe3+ inside the cavity of the polymer matrix of the MIP layer).
Regarding claim 29, Bhansali teaches wherein the MIP layer is conductive (¶16: a layer of conductive polymer matrix film; ¶13: a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures; both of them are conductive).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhansali in view of Sales and Sun, and further in view of Choi (C. S. Choi, Electrochemical Behavior and Characterization of Polypyrrole-Copper Phthalocyanine Tetrasulfonate Thin Film: Cyclic Voltammetry and in Situ Raman Spectroscopic Investigation, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990 (112), pp. 1757-68).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Bhansali, Sales, and Sun disclose all limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the non-biological catalyst comprises: a phthalocyanine ring comprising a metal atom (claim 3) or wherein the phthalocyanine ring comprises an ionizable sidechain, and wherein the ionizable sidechain comprises any of a sulphonate group (claim 5).
However, Choi teaches a sensor using polypyrrole thin films doped with copper phthalocyanine tetrasulfonate (PPy-CuPcTs) on an electrode for electrochemical measurements ([Abstract]). In the cyclic voltammetric (CV) studies of the PPy-CuPcTs film electrode, the presence of cathodic an anodic currents for the redox reaction is due to CuPcTs (p. 1764, section B.4), showing sharp and high anodic currents in the CV measurement, e.g., 6 times larger amount of charge for the anodic peak in the presence of (MV)Cl2 (p. 1765, section B.6).
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 Bhansali, Sales, and Sun by substituting the electrocatalytic centers with copper phthalocyanine tetrasulfonate (PPy-CuPcTs) in the presence of (MV)Cl2 as taught by Choi because the catalyst comprising a phthalocyanine ring with a metal atom and an ionizable sidechain, e.g., sulphonate group, would show sharp and high anodic currents in the CV measurements (pp. 1764-65, sections B.4 and B.6). The suggestion for doing so would have been that the catalyst comprising a phthalocyanine ring with a metal atom and an ionizable sidechain, e.g., sulphonate group, is a suitable material for the electrocatalytic centers and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhansali in view of Sales and Sun, and further in view of Campbell (US 2022/0175278).
Regarding claim 7, Bhansali, Sales, and Sun discloses all limitations of claim 6, but fail to teach wherein the electrocatalytic film further comprises a second layer over the single homogeneous layer, wherein the second layer comprises a non-electrocatalytic material.
However, Campbell teaches a device 300 with a substrate 110, on which a working electrode 135 and a surface layer 340 are laid over layer by layer (Fig. 3; ¶31). The surface layer 340 is referred to as a surface-immobilized layer, and is one or more of a functional layer, a membrane, a film, a sensing layer, a diffusion limiting layer, or an interference rejection layer (¶31).
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 Bhansali, Sales, and Sun by incorporating a top interference rejection layer as taught by Campbell because the top layer would reject interferences (Campbell, ¶31) and enhance the selective sensing capability (¶86). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhansali in view of Sales and Sun, and further in view of Rogers (US 2020/0155047).
Regarding claim 11, Bhansali, Sales, and Sun disclose all limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the biosensor further comprising a microheater on the electrically insulative substrate.
However, Rogers teaches a microfluidic system for monitoring biofluid property ([Abstract]). The microfluidic system includes a RF heater supported by the substrate for increasing a temperature for the sensor to measure the characteristic of the biofluid (¶78). Here, Examiner notes that the RF heater in a microfluidic substrate must be a microheater.
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 Bhansali, Sales, and Sun by integrating the microheater on the substrate as taught by Rogers because the heater represents a suitable heater for controlling temperature for the sensor to measure the characteristic of the biofluid (¶78). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Bhansali in view of Sales and Sun, further in view of Amoabediny (US 2017/0010259), and further in view of Johnson (US 2014/0273187), supported by Belbruno as an evidence.
Regarding claim 13, Bhansali teaches a sensor system (Fig. 3; ¶39: a MIP biosensor), comprising:
an electrochemical biosensor (Fig. 3; ¶39) comprising:
at least one working electrode (Fig. 1: WE), a reference electrode (Fig. 1: RE) and a counter electrode (Fig. 1: CE), wherein an electrocatalytic film (¶13: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP matrix; a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures) is on the at least one working electrode (¶13: immobilized atop a sensing electrode; modifying the electrode surface to comprise a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures), wherein the electrocatalytic film comprises a molecular imprinted polymer (MIP) layer (Fig. 3; ¶13: MIP layer), and wherein the MIP layer comprises:
a plurality of shape-selective cavities (Fig. 3), wherein an individual shape-selective cavity is configured to selectively bind a template molecule (¶61: the MIP can be a crosslinked polymeric network formed in the presence of an imprinting compound or "template molecule," such that the template molecule is later removed leaving a matrix that is able to recognize and bind to the template molecule via a complementary binding cavity; "complementarity" indicates that the cavity left behind in the MIP matrix has a size matching the template molecule, as well as binding sites that have affinity toward functional groups present in the template molecule), and
a plurality of electrocatalytic centers (¶13: a plurality of nanoscopic metallic structures), wherein an individual electrocatalytic center of the plurality of electrocatalytic centers is adjacent to an individual shape-selective cavity of the plurality of shape-selective cavities (¶73: depositing a plurality of metallic nanoscopic structures onto the surface of the conductive electrode prior to the electrochemical polymerization; thus the plurality of metallic nanoscopic structures on the surface of the electrode would be adjacent to each of the complementary binding cavities of the MIP matrix immobilized atop the electrode), wherein the shape-selective cavities having binding affinity for template molecules that is greater than binding affinity for chemical analogs of the template molecules (as evidenced by Belbruno ¶3: a molecularly imprinted polymer MIP is a polymer that is formed in the presence of a template or target analyte molecule producing a complementary cavity that is left behind in the MIP when the template is removed, and thus the MIP demonstrates affinity for the original template molecule over other related and analogous molecules).
Bhansali fails to teach an electrically insulative substrate wherein the electrodes are integrated on the insulative substrate.
However, Sales teach a device for analysing biomolecules (¶3) using a tailored molecularly-imprinted polymer for a given biomolecule (¶64). The device uses screen-printed technology consisting of layer-by-layer depositions of ink (i.e., screen-printed electrodes SPEs) upon a solid substrate defining the geometry of the intended sensor (¶8), which is mostly plastic, as PET or PVC (¶12). The SPE devices contains a three-electrode system, including working, auxiliary and reference electrodes, printed on the solid substrate of planar format (¶9). Thus, Sales teaches the electrodes integrated on an electrically insulative substrate (¶12: plastic).
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 Bhansali by incorporating an electrically insulative substrate on which the electrodes are integrated as taught by Sales because the substrate would provide a support and defines the geometry of the sensor (¶¶8, 12). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Bhansali fails to teach the electrocatalytic film is a single homogeneous layer comprising the MIP layer and the plurality of electrocatalytic centers immobilized within the MIP layer.
However, Sun teaches a series of molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) containing equal amounts of iron(III) were prepared by the polymerization of acrylamide and ethylene dimethacrylate in the presence of the template of NBA and a FeCl3 complex ([Abstract]), as shown in Scheme 1 (p. 1590). Metal ions are introduced into the MIP imprinted cavities for the fabrication of molecularly imprinted catalysts (p. 1589, col. 2, last para.), wherein the Fe3+ ions are immobilized inside the cavities of the MIP matrix after the template molecule was completely extracted and removed (Scheme 1; p. 1590, bridging para. of col. 1-2), and thus making the MIP layer a homogeneous one.
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 Bhansali by combining the layer of the metallic nanoscopic structures and the MIP layer into a homogenous layer as taught by Sun because it is known in the art that metal ions are commonly introduced into the MIP imprinted cavities for the fabrication of molecularly imprinted catalysts (p. 1589, col. 2, last para.). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results. In another word, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(A).
Bhansali does not disclose a plurality of interconnect pads integrated on the insulative substrate and electrically coupled to the at least one working electrode, the reference electrode and the counter electrode or a reader to be coupled to the electrochemical biosensor.
However, Amoabediny teaches a microfluidic electrochemical device ([Abstract]), including an electrode array 110 including electrodes, e.g., a reference electrode 102, an auxiliary electrode 103 and a working electrode 104 (Fig. 1; ¶30). The electrode array 101 further includes contacts 105 for allowing connection with an external measurement system (Fig. 3: indicating contacts 105 connected to electrodes; ¶30). The contact pads are connected to the reader using a printed circuit board (PCB) (¶46) for output electrochemical readings (¶44).
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 Bhansali by incorporating contacts coupled to electrodes and a reader coupled to the sensor as taught by Amoabediny because they enable connections with an external measurement system (¶30) and output the electrochemical readings to the reader (¶¶44, 46). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Bhansali and Amoabediny do not disclose the reader comprising an interface.
However, Johnson teaches a point of care sensor including portable readers ([Abstract]). The reader 102 include an interface 108 to connect the point of care system 100 to a computer system (Fig. 1A; ¶¶39-40).
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 Bhansali and Amoabediny by incorporating an interface in the reader as taught by Johnson for connecting the point of care system and a computer system. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhansali in view of Sales, Sun, Amoabediny, and Johnson, and further in view of Rogers, and further in view of Gorte (US 2007/0080061).
Regarding claim 15, Bhansali, Sales, Sun, Amoabediny, and Johnson disclose all limitations of claim 13.
Bhansali, Sales, Sun, Amoabediny, and Johnson do not disclose a microheater that is integrated to the insulative substrate.
However, Rogers teaches a microfluidic system for monitoring biofluid property ([Abstract]). The microfluidic system includes a RF heater embedded in or supported by the substrate (¶78).
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 Bhansali, Sales, Sun, Amoabediny, and Johnson by integrating a microheater to the substrate as taught by Rogers because it represents a suitable heater for controlling temperature of an electrochemical sensor. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Bhansali, Sales, Sun, Amoabediny, Johnson, and Rogers do not disclose wherein the plurality of interconnect pads is electrically coupled to the microheater.
However, Gorte teaches a NOx sensor ([Abstract]) including leads, contact pads and the leads 24 supply current to the heater and electrodes (¶33). The heater/electrode are in electrical communication and extend from the heater/electrode to the terminal end of the sensor where they are in electrical communication with the corresponding and appropriate contact pads (¶33).
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 Bhansali, Sales, Sun, Amoabediny, Johnson, and Rogers by coupling the pads and the heater as taught by Gorte because it provides electrical communication for the heater via appropriate contact pad. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 16, Bhansali, Sales, Sun, Amoabediny, Johnson, Rogers, and Gorte disclose all limitations of claim 15, and Johnson further discloses the reader interface connected between the biosensor 31 and the biosensor control electronics 43 (Fig. 12A; ¶166). Thus, the combined Bhansali, Sales, Sun, Amoabediny, Johnson, Rogers, and Gorte would necessarily result in the coupling between the interface and the interconnect pads as claimed because the pads would provide electrical communications for the heater/electrode of the electrochemical sensors through their corresponding and appropriate contact pads (Gorte, ¶33).
Regarding claim 17, Bhansali, Sales, Sun, Amoabediny, Johnson, Rogers, and Gorte disclose all limitations of claim 16. Johnson further discloses the reader 22 including a processor 41 that may implement program code 40 for operating the reader 22 (Fig. 12A; ¶¶166-167). The biosensor control electronics 43 include circuitry to control assay parameters, e.g., voltage of assay electrodes for an electrochemical assay, assay temperature, and the like (¶169). FIG. 11C shows heater duty cycle and various temperatures during operation. The assay temperature, derived from the screen-printed thermocouple temperature measurement, is maintained at 40°C, with feedback from the thermocouple used to control duty cycle (¶165). Amoabediny discloses the contacts 105 for allowing connection with an external measurement system, e.g., potentiostat (Fig. 3: indicating contacts 105 connected to electrodes; ¶30). Thus, the combined Bhansali, Sales, Sun, Amoabediny, Johnson, Rogers, and Gorte would necessarily result in the reader comprising a potentiostat circuitry and a temperature controller circuitry electrically coupled to the interface, and both circuitries are electrically coupled to the processor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive in light of new grounds for rejection. The newly cited prior art, Sun, is now relied on to teach a single homogeneous layer comprising a MIP layer and a plurality of electrocatalytic centers immobilized within a polymer matrix of the MIP layer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights