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. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: target sample handling system and interferometric system in claim 9 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Applicant discloses the target sample handling system includes a flow injection system comprising: at least one pump (para. [0059] ; and at least one in-line mixer ( p a ra. [0060] ). Applicant discloses the interferometric system is an optical interferometric system that includes a sensing layer composition (para.[0006]) adhered on at least one side of one or more wave guide channels in/on a waveguide chip (para.[0006]) Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “An analyst sensor system” should be “ An analy [[s]] t e sensor system” . Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim (s) 10 and 12 is /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 10, the claim recites “the at least one analyte”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the sensor system’s function without providing corresponding structure for perfo r ming the function. Thus, it is unclear what components of the system enable detection in situ and quantification in real-time or near real-time. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1- 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (EP 0916946 A2) as cited in IDS filed on 02/06/2024 . Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses a sensing layer composition ( A composition, method, and test device for quantitatively determining the oxidant concentration of a test sample are disclosed. The test device includes a test pad having a suitable carrier matrix incorporating an indicator reagent composition...An indicator reagent composition is incorporated into a carrier matrix , Abstract ; A carrier matrix of the test pad comprises a bibulous material, such as filter paper; a nonbibulous material, such as a strip, layer , Para. [0021] ) comprising: a charge transfer complex comprising an electron acceptor ( reagent composition including: (a) an iodide salt , Para. [0022] ) and at least one aromatic hydrocarbon ( ethoxylated phenol ; the indicator reagent composition also can contain ... a nonionic surfactant . Para. [0053 ] ; Useful nonionic surfactants include ... an ethoxylated phenol ; Para. [0055] ; Also See claims 1, 21 & 22,), wherein the sensing layer composition is adapted to bind or otherwise be selectively disturbed by one or more analytes ( … the present invention is directed to a new and improved composition, test device, and method of determining the peroxide or chlorine concentration of a test sample . Para. [0021] ; See Claims 1, 2, 5 & 6 ; the peroxide comprises peracetic acid ; Para. [0077] ). Regarding Claim 2, Wu discloses the claimed sensing layer composition of claim 1, wherein the electron acceptor comprises iodine ( … reagent composition including: (a) an iodide salt … Para. [0022] ) and the at least one aromatic hydrocarbon comprises an aromatic polymer ( Useful nonionic surfactants include, but are not limited to, an ethoxylated polysorbate, e.g. an ethoxylated alcohol, e.g., a C 1 0 to C22 alcohol ethoxylated with about 10 to about 25 moles of ethylene oxide, an ethoxylated phenol, i.e., an ethoxylated octylphenol , nonylphenol, or dodecylphenol with ... a polyethylene glycol , Para. [0055] ). Regarding Claim 3, Wu discloses the claimed sensing layer composition of claim 2, wherein the aromatic polymer comprises phenol, styrene, or a combination thereof ( Useful nonionic surfactants include, but are not limited to, an ethoxylated polysorbate, e.g. an ethoxylated alcohol, e.g., a C 10 to C22 alcohol ethoxylated with about 10 to about 25 moles of ethylene oxide, an ethoxylated phenol, i.e., an ethoxylated octylphenol , nonylphenol, or dodecylphenol with ... a polyethylene glycol , Para. [0055 ] ). Regarding Claim 4, Wu discloses the claimed sensing layer composition of claim 1. In regards to wherein the sensing layer composition is configured to sense one or more analytes in a liquid that contains acetic acid or hydrogen peroxide without interference from the acetic acid or the hydrogen peroxide, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. In this case, Wu inherently teaches wherein the sensing layer composition is configured to sense one or more analytes in a liquid that contains acetic acid or hydrogen peroxide without interference from the acetic acid or the hydrogen peroxide ( … the present invention is directed to a new and improved composition, test device, and method of determining the peroxide or chlorine concentration of a test sample . Para. [0021] ; See Claims 1, 2, 5 & 6 ; ... the peroxide comprises peracetic acid . Para. [0077] ). Regarding Claim 5, Wu discloses the claimed sensing layer composition of claim 1. In regards to wherein the sensing layer composition is adapted to be adhered to at least one side of one or more waveguide channels in/on a waveguide chip of an interferometric system, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. In this case, Wu inherently teaches wherein the sensing layer composition is adapted to be adhered to at least one side of one or more waveguide channels in/on a waveguide chip of an interferometric system ( … the present invention is directed to a new and improved composition, test device, and method of determining the peroxide or chlorine concentration of a test sample . Para. [0021] ). Regarding Claim 6, Wu discloses the claimed sensing layer composition of claim 5. In regards to wherein the interferometric system is an optical interferometric system, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. In this case, Wu inherently teaches wherein the interferometric system is an optical interferometric system ( … the present invention is directed to a new and improved composition, test device, and method of determining the peroxide or chlorine concentration of a test sample . Para. [0021] ). Regarding Claim 7, Wu discloses the claimed sensing layer composition of claim 1, wherein the sensing layer composition is formulated as a film ( A carrier matrix of the test pad comprises a bibulous material, such as filter paper; a nonbibulous material, such as a strip, layer , Para. [0021] ; Nonbibulous matrices include glass fiber, polymeric films , Para. [0068] ). Regarding Claim 8, Wu discloses the claimed sensing layer composition of claim 1, wherein the one or more analytes includes peracetic acid ( … the present invention is directed to a new and improved composition, test device, and method of determining the peroxide or chlorine concentration of a test sample . Para. [0021] ; See Claims 1, 2, 5 & 6 ; the peroxide comprises peracetic acid ; Para. [0077]). Claim(s) 9 , 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levin (US 20220091115 A1). Regarding claim 9 and 11, Levin discloses an analyt e sensor system ( portable interferometric system 100 , Fig. 1) comprising: a target sample handling system including a flow injection system ( According to one embodiment, target sample is introduced by an injection device . Para. [0175]) comprising: at least one pump ( micropump 898 , Fig. 8F and para. [0150]; also para. [0175]); and at least one in-line mixer ( mixing bladder 880 , Fig. 8F and para. [0150]; also see para. [0176]); an optical interferometric system ( interferometric chip , Fig. 3A) that includes a sensing layer composition ( The interferometric chip includes one or more waveguide channels having a sensing layer thereon ; para. [0003]) adhered on at least one side of one or more wave guide channels in/on a waveguide chip (para. [0003]), wherein the sensing layer composition is adapted to bind or otherwise be selectively disturbed by one or more analytes ( the sensing layer adapted to bind or otherwise be selectively disturbed by one or more analytes within the animal health test sample composition . Para. [0003]), wherein the sensor system is configured to detect and quantify one or more analytes present in a target sample ( A portable interferometric system for detection and quantification of analyte within an animal health test sample composition is provided . Para. [0003]), and wherein the target sample handling system and interferometric system are in liquid communication with one another (… the method further includes the step of introducing the target sample to the interferometric system 1206 …According to one embodiment, the injection device may be permanently attached to the cartridge system . Para. [0175]). Regarding claim 12, Levin discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 9. In regards to wherein the sensor system configured to detect and quantify one or more analytes in situ and provide analyte quantity in real-time or near real-time , a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. In this case, Levin inherently teaches sensor system configured to detect and quantify one or more analytes in situ and provide analyte quantity in real-time or near real-time ( … The systems as provided herein may provide both qualitative and quantitative results from one or more analytes within a test sample composition. Particularly, the systems as provided herein may simultaneously provide detection and quantification of one or more analytes from a target sample. According to one embodiment, both qualitative and quantitative results are provided in real-time or near real time . Para. [00 59 ] ). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 10 and 13 -15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being unpatentable over Levin in view of Campbell ( Planar-Waveguide Interferometers for Chemical Sensing ). Regarding claim 10, 13 and 15, Levin discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 9. Levin does not disclose the sensing layer composition comprising: a charge transfer complex comprising an electron acceptor and at least one aromatic hydrocarbon. Levin also does not disclose the analyte is peracetic acid. Levin discloses the system is capable of detect and quantify levels of various chemicals including but not limited to ammonia…chlorine (para. [0169]). Analogous art, Campbell discloses an iodine/polymer sensing film layer ( It is also possible to have the iodide ions in the sensing film, leaving the chlorine to diffuse into the sensing film, convert the iodide to iodine, and to have the iodine complex with the aromatic styrene . Page 94, para. 3) comprising: a charge transfer complex ( iodine complex with the aromatic styrene ) comprising an electron acceptor ( iodine/iodide ) and at least one aromatic hydrocarbon ( styrene ) (para. 3, page 94). As both the device of Levin and sensing film of Campbell are configured to detect and quantify chlorine on the surface by using interferometers , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the sensor layer of Interferometric chip of Levin to with chlorine-detection iodine/polymer film to derive the claimed invention. Doing so provides the device of Levin with indicator/sensor polymer composition capable of detecting and quantifying chlorine as disclosed by Levin. Regarding the limitation of the analyte of being peracetic acid as claimed in claims 10 and 15, Campbell does not explicitly disclose the iodine sensing layer is configured to detect peracetic acid. I t is noted that according to the specification, the sensing layer can be iodine-containing film and a styrene (para. [0007] of specification), and the sensing layer disclosed by the specification exhibits the claimed property. Hence, sensing layer disclosed by Campbell (after incorporation into Levin) would have anticipate d the limitation directed to the ability of detecting peracetic acid . Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 . “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102 .” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims (MPEP 2112, III). Regarding Claim 14 , Modified Levin discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 13. Campbell , after incorporation with Levin, discloses the sensing layer composition is formulated as a film ( sensing film , Page 94, para. 3). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICKEY HUANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7690 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30-5:30 PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maris Kessel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712707698 . 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. /M.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1758 /MARIS R KESSEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758