DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed February 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8(w) have been amended; claims 10-19 are new; and claims 7-9 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-6 and 10-19 are currently examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
Applicant’s amendments to the drawing and Claims have overcome each objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 6, 2025.
New grounds of claim objection are necessitated by the amendment as outlined below.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) are necessitated by the amendment as outlined below.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for claims 1-6 from the previous office action are essentially maintained and modified only in response to the amendment.
New grounds of rejection for new claims 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
Claim Objection
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 14 and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: please amend “the saline solution are maintained” to -- the saline solution [[are]] is maintained--; “an output of the function generator” to – [[an]] the output of the function generator--.
Claim 3: please amend “an input of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit” to – [[an]] the input of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit--.
Claim 5: please amend “the circuit” to –the electrical current-potential conversion circuit--.
Claim 6: please amend “an input of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit” to – [[an]] the input of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit--.
Claim 14: please amend “waters” to – water[[s]]--.
Claim 16: please amend “the saline solution have” to -- the saline solution [[have]] has --.
Claim 17: please amend “wherein the saline solution comprise” to -- wherein the saline solution comprises--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the electrical current-potential conversion circuit comprises the oscilloscope …, and wherein the oscilloscope is connected to an output of the circuit and a grounding cable”, which is not supported by the specification and drawings. The specification discloses the electrical current-potential conversion circuit 3 and the oscilloscope 5 as shown in Fig.2 [para. 0015 in PG-Pub]. The electrical current-potential conversion circuit 3 and the oscilloscope 5 are two separate elements, as further evidenced by instant claim 1 wherein the equipment composed of an electrical current-potential conversion circuit and an oscilloscope. Thus, the oscilloscope is not a component of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit. Furthermore, Fig.2 shows the oscilloscope 5 is connected to an output of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit 3. But the oscilloscope 5 is not connected to a grounding cable. Thus, the limitations of claim 5 are new matters.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the function generator and the oscilloscope are disposed in the equipment”, which is not supported by the specification and drawings. The specification discloses the equipment composed of the function generator and the oscilloscope, as evidenced by instant claim 1 and Fig.2. Although the specification discloses that “It is worth noting that both the function generator (1) and the oscilloscope (5) are inserted into a single piece of equipment, ensuring a more compact sensor” [para. 0028 in PG-Pub] and “In this equipment configuration, both the function generator and the oscilloscope are present in the multifunctional equipment (E)” [para. 0030 in Pg-Pub], note that the multifunctional equipment is different from the claimed equipment composed of a function generator, a pair of electrodes comprising a first electrode and a second electrode, an electrical current-potential conversion circuit, a symmetrical power supply, and an oscilloscope, as evidenced by instant claim 1. Thus the limitation of claim 18 is a new matter.
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 3, 6, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 3, claim 3 recites “wherein the conductor wire is connected to an input of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit and generates a closure of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit through a virtual ground”; claim 1 recites “wherein the first electrode is coupled to an output of the function generator, and wherein the second electrode is coupled to an input of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit”; and claim 2 recites “through a conductor wire connecting an output of the function generator to the first electrode of the pair of electrodes, …, wherein the electrical current-potential conversion circuit is closed with the second electrode of the pair of electrodes, the second electrode being directly connected to a second conductor wire”. Thus, the conductor wire connects the function generator and the first electrode. It is unclear if “the conductor wire” of claim 3 refers to the second conductor wire since the conductor wire is connected to the first electrode and the function generator as explained above, and the second electrode is coupled to an input of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit. Therefore, the scope of claim 3 is indefinite. Claim 6 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “the first electrode is connected directly to the function generator output”, while claim 2 recites “through a conductor wire connecting an output of the function generator to the first electrode of the pair of electrodes”. Thus, it is unclear if the output of the function generator and the first electrode are directly connected or are connected through the conductor wire. Furthermore, claim 6 further recites “wherein rods are connected to the electrical current-potential conversion circuit and the function generator through electrical cables”, and it is unclear if “rods” are the same as or different from the rods of the pair of electrodes recited in claim 6. It seems that the function generator is connected to the first electrode through rod and/or electrical cable, which contradicts to “the first electrode is connected directly to the function generator output” recited in claim 6. Thus, the scope of claim 6 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “the system”, which lacks antecedent basis. Thus, the scope of claim 11 is indefinite. Claims 12-13 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carminati et al. (WO2019097333A1), and in view of TEK (Oscilloscope Measurement Lab, Tektronix, April 2013), Keim (Transimpedance amplifier: Op-Amp-based current-to-voltage signal converter, https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/video-tutorials/op-amp-applications-current-to-voltage-converter/, September 27, 2020), and Tietze et al. (Chapter 5: Operational Amplifiers, in Electronic Circuits, Springer 2008). TEK_DPO4104 (Digital phosphor oscilloscopes: DPO 4000 series, Tektronix, 2007) is used as an evidence for claim 5.
Regarding claim 1, Carminati teaches a sensor for monitoring inorganic scale (sensor 10 for the detection and measurement of a layer deposited on a surface in contact with a liquid medium [claim 8]; allows not only to detect and measure the deposition of inorganic layer [for example scale] or biological layer for example biofilm [ Ln 27-31 on page 3]) comprising:
equipment (Fig.1 shows equipment); “for monitoring deposition of inorganic compounds in a saline solution” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Carminati teaches the equipment of the sensor 10 for the detection and measurement of a layer deposited on a surface in contact with a liquid medium [claim 8], and allows to detect and measure the deposition of inorganic layer [for example calcium carbonate scale] (Ln 27-31 on page 3; Ln 24 on page 11), thus the disclosed equipment is capable of performing the claimed functions above. The equipment composed of:
a function generator (the processing means 14 in Fig.1 are configured to generate a measurement signal having frequency, which is transmitted to the electrodes 11 to detect the impedance Z [Ln 25-28 on page 9]);
a pair of electrodes (at least one pair of electrodes 11 [Ln 5-6 on page 9]) comprising a first electrode and a second electrode (Fig.1 shows the at least one pair of electrodes 11 comprising two electrodes 11 arranged at a mutual distance D on the surface in contact with a liquid medium [abstract]); and
an electrical current-potential conversion circuit (a transimpedance circuit converts current into voltage [Ln 22-23 on page 9]),
wherein the first electrode is immersed in the saline solution (Fig.1 shows the two electrodes 11 arranged at a mutual distance D on the surface in contact with a liquid medium [abstract]; note that “the saline solution” further limits the sample but fails to further limits the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the saline solution further limits the sample [material worked upon] but fails to limit the sensor [by a structure being claimed], the limitation of the saline solution has no patentable weight. Furthermore, Carminati teaches the sensor allowing to detect and measure the deposition of inorganic layer [for example calcium carbonate scale] in Ln 27-31 on page 3 and Ln 24 on page 11, the liquid medium must be a saline solution comprising such as calcium ions) and is coupled to an output of the function generator (The processing means 14 are configured to generate a measurement signal having frequency f, which is transmitted to the electrodes 11 to detect the impedance Z [Ln 25-28 on page 9]; Also provided is a sinusoidal voltage generator to drive a first electrode 11 [Ln 17-18 on page 9]), and
wherein the second electrode is immersed in the saline solution (Fig.1 shows the two electrodes 11 arranged at a mutual distance D on the surface in contact with a liquid medium [abstract]; as explained above, the saline solution further limits the sample [material worked upon] but fails to limit the sensor [by a structure being claimed], the limitation of the saline solution has no patentable weight. Furthermore, Carminati teaches the sensor allowing to detect and measure the deposition of inorganic layer [for example calcium carbonate scale] in Ln 27-31 on page 3 and Ln 24 on page 11, the liquid medium must be a saline solution comprising such as calcium ions) and is coupled to an input of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit ( a circuit for reading the current is connected to the second electrode 11. In addition, a transimpedance circuit converts current into voltage [Ln 21-23 on page 9]).
Carminati is silent to wherein the equipment further comprises: (1) a symmetrical power supply; and (2) an oscilloscope.
Carminati further teaches the electronic processing unit 13 is configured for the measurement of the impedance Z between the electrodes 11 (Ln 13-14 on page 9).
TEK teaches measuring impedance and capacitance with an oscilloscope DPO4104 and function generator of Tektronix AFG2021 (page 1 and Equipment List on page 2). In step 4, use the oscilloscope DPO4104 to probe at nodes A1 and A2, and Fig.3 shows an example of the resulting waveform (see Equipment List and Procedure on page 2).
Given the teachings of Carminati regarding the impedance measurement, and the teachings of TEK regarding the use of the oscilloscope and function generator to measure impedance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an oscilloscope of DPO4104 to the equipment, as taught by TEK, since it would allow to visualize and monitor the waveform as shown in an example of Fig.3 in TEK.
Modified Carminati is silent to the equipment further comprises: (1) a symmetrical power supply.
Carminati teaches the transimpedance circuit coverts the current obtained from the second electrode to a voltage (a circuit for reading the current connected to the second electrode and the transimpedance circuit further converts current to voltage [Ln 21-23 on page 9]), but does not explicitly teach the configuration of the transimpedance circuit.
Keim teaches a transimpedance amplifier, which is an operational amplifier-based current-to-voltage converter, wherein the current input connects an inverting input of the Op-amp, as shown in the circuit on page 3.
Give the teachings of Carminati regarding the current obtained from the second electrode is further converted to voltage by the transimpedance amplifier, and the teachings of Keim regarding the Op-amp transimpedance amplifier (TIA) for converting current to voltage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the transimpedance amplifier in Carminati with the Op-amp transimpedance amplifier, wherein the second electrode is connected to an inverting input of the operational amplifier such that the current from the second electrode is converted to voltage, as taught by combined Carminati and Keim, since it would produce a higher-amplitude output voltage (the 2nd paragraph on page 2 of Keim).
Tietze teaches the terminals of an operational amplifier, as shown in Fig.5.1, having two supply voltage terminals (V+ and V-) which provide operating voltages that are positive and negative in response to ground in order to allow quiescent input and output potentials of 0 V. Typical supply voltages are [Symbol font/0xB1]15 V for general application (the 2nd paragraph on page 484). Figs.5.1 and 5.16a show a symmetric power supply for providing operating voltages of [Symbol font/0xB1]15 V to the operational amplifier (sections 5.1 and 5.2.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a symmetric power supply of [Symbol font/0xB1]15 V to power the operational amplifier of the Op-amp transimpedance amplifier, as taught by Tietze, since Tietze teaches typical supply voltages of Op-amps are [Symbol font/0xB1]15 V for general applications (section 5.1 on page 484).
Regarding claim 5, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein the oscilloscope with an analog-to-digital conversion (the disclosed DPO4104 oscilloscope is a digital phosphor oscilloscope [DPO], thus must have an analog-to-digital conversion); and the limitation “equal to or greater than 100 MS/s and a maximum detection amplitude above 15 V” is a functional recitation of the oscilloscope. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Carminati teaches the DPO4104 oscilloscope. As evidenced by TEK_DPO4104, the DPO4104 oscilloscope has an analog-to-digital conversion [ADC] since it is digital phosphor oscilloscope [title]; the sample rate is up to 5 GS/s [Features & Benefits on page 1]; and maximum input voltage of 250 VRMS with peaks [Symbol font/0xA3][Symbol font/0xB1] 400 V [page 8]. Thus, the disclosed
DPO4104 oscilloscope has an ADC and is capable of measuring signal with a sample rate of equal to or greater than 100 MS/s and a maximum detection amplitude above 15 V), and
the oscilloscope is connected to an output of the circuit and a grounding cable (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the oscilloscope is used to monitor the output signal [step 4 and Fig.2 in TEK]; and the second electrode is connected to the inverting input terminal of the op-amp transimpedance amplifier by a conductor wire and the noninverting input terminal of the op-amp is connected to a virtual ground by a grounding cable [see op-amp transimpedance amplifier circuit on page 3 in Keim]; thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the oscilloscope connected to an output of the op-amp transimpedance amplifier and a grounding cable to monitor the output signal of the op-amp TIA).
Regarding claim 10, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 1, and Carminati teaches further comprising a reactor, wherein the pair of electrodes are disposed within the reactor (Bacteria were made to grow in a reactor specifically made produced to speed up and control biomass growth in a solution in which the electrodes 11 were also submerged [Ln 2-22 on page 11]), and
The limitation “configured to receive the saline solution” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, as outlined in the rejection of claim 10 above, Carminati teaches the reactor configured to receive a solution in which the electrodes 11 were submerged, thus the reactor is capable of performing the claimed function of receiving the saline solution. Note that the saline solution further limits the sample [material worked upon] but fails to limit the reactor [by a structure being claimed].
Regarding claim 14, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 10, and wherein the reactor is configured to receive the saline solution from a production water of an oil well” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, as outlined in the rejection of claim 10 above, Carminati teaches the reactor configured to receive a solution in which the electrodes 11 were submerged, thus the reactor is capable of performing the claimed function of receiving the saline solution from a production water of an oil well. Note that “the saline solution from a production water of an oil well” further limits the sample [material worked upon] but fails to limit the reactor [by a structure being claimed], thus has no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 16, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 1, and “wherein the saline solution has an ion concentration of at least about 50,000 ppm” further limits the sample but fails to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claim further limits the ion concentration of the saline solution (material worked upon) but fails to limit the sensor (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 17, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 1, and “wherein the saline solution comprises at least one of sodium cations, strontium cations, barium ions, calcium ions, magnesium ions, potassium ions, chlorine ions, bicarbonate ions, sulfate ions, acetate ions, or bromide ions” further limits the sample but fails to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claim further limits the type(s) of ions in the saline solution (material worked upon) but fails to limit the sensor (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 18, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein the function generator and the oscilloscope are disposed in the equipment (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the equipment is composed of the function generator and the oscilloscope).
Regarding claim 19, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein the oscilloscope is connected to an output of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the oscilloscope is used to monitor the output signal [step 4 and Fig.2 in TEK]; and the second electrode is connected to the inverting input terminal of the op-amp transimpedance amplifier to convert the current from the second electrode into an voltage output signal [see op-amp transimpedance amplifier circuit on page 3 in Keim]; thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the oscilloscope connected to an output of the op-amp transimpedance amplifier to monitor the output voltage signal of the op-amp TIA).
Claims 2-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Carminati, TEK , Keim and Tietze, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (The study of a high efficient and environment-friendly scale inhibitor for calcium carbonate scale in oil fields, Petroleum, 2021, 7, 325-334). TEK_AFG2021 (AFG2021 datasheet, 2023) is used as an evidence for claim 2.
Regarding claim 2, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein the function generator is configured to generate an input signal sent for the saline solution (Carminati teaches the processing means 14 configured to generate a measurement signal transmitted to the electrodes 11 which are immersed in the liquid medium [Ln 25-28 on page 9 and Fig.1]), through a conductor wire connecting the output of the function generator to the first electrode of the pair of electrodes, wherein the electrical current-potential conversion circuit is closed with the second electrode of the pair of electrodes, the second electrode being directly connected to a second conductor wire (Carminati teaches Fig.1 shows the electronic processing unit 13 connects the pair of electrodes 11 through two conductor wires in order to measure impedance Z between the electrodes 11 [Ln 13-28 on page 9]; since the measurement signal from the processing means 14 is transmitted to the electrodes 11 to detect the impedance Z, the function generator is connected to the first electrode through a conductor wire, and Fig.1 of Carminati shows the second electrode is directly connected to a second conductor wire. As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the second electrode is connected to the inverting input of the Op-amp TIA for converting the current from the second electrode into voltage, thus the electrical current-potential conversion circuit [the Op-amp transimpedance amplifier] is closed with the second electrode of the pair of electrodes).
Carminati further teaches wherein the input signal using a frequency from 10 Hz up to 10 MHz as shown in x-axis of Fig.3.
Carminati is silent to the following limitations: (1) wherein the function generator is configured to generate a low alternating electrical voltage amplitude as an input signal using a 1 V amplitude signal with a 10 KHz frequency and a 0 V offset level; (2) wherein the saline solution is maintained in a jacketed reactor with controlled temperature.
TEK teaches the use of Tektronix AFG2021 arbitrary/function generator for the impedance measurement (see Equipment List on page 2). In step 2, set the function generator to output a 1.9 V amplitude, 100 Hz sine wave. As evidenced by TEK_AFG2021, Tektronix AFG2021 function generator is capable to output a signal with a maximum frequency of 20 MHz, amplitude of 10 mV-10 Vp-p, and 0 V offset (pages 3-4 in TEK_AFG2021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the function generator in modified Carminati with the function generator of Tektronix AFG2021, as taught by TEK, since TEK teaches the use of the Tektronix AFG2021 function generator for impedance measurement (Equipment List on page 2). With the substituted function generator, the function generator is capable of generating a low alternating electrical voltage amplitude as an input signal using a 1 V amplitude signal with a 10 KHz frequency and a 0 V offset level.
Modified Carminati is silent to the following limitations: (2) wherein the saline solution is maintained in a jacketed reactor with controlled temperature.
Carminati further teaches a reactor, wherein the pair of electrodes are disposed within the reactor (Bacteria were made to grow in a reactor specifically made produced to speed up and control biomass growth in a solution in which the electrodes 11 were also submerged [Ln 2-22 on page 11]).
Wang teaches scaling is one of the universal safety problems encountering in the oil production and transportation industry (Introduction). Section 2.4.3 details the dynamic measurement using apparatus comprising a double jacketed reactor, a thermostat water bath, and a mixed solution transport pump. The solution in the double jacketed reactor was stirred and heated to 50°C through the hot water circulation of the outer layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reactor in modified Carminati to a jacketed reactor with controlled temperature, as taught by Wang, since it would allow to maintain and adjust the temperature of the solution (section 2.4.3 in Wang).
Regarding claim 3, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 2, and Carminati teaches wherein the conductor wire is connected to an input of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit and generates a closure of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit through a virtual ground (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the second electrode is connected to the inverting input terminal of the op-amp transimpedance amplifier by a conductor wire and the noninverting input terminal of the op-amp is connected to a virtual ground [see op-amp transimpedance amplifier circuit on page 3 in Keim], and the operating voltages for the op-amp are [Symbol font/0xB1] 15 V supplied by the symmetrical power supply [Figs.5.1 and 5.16a in Tietze]. Thus, the conductor wire is connected to an inverting input of the op-amp transimpedance amplifier and generates a closure of the op-amp transimpedance amplifier through a virtual ground for converting the current from the second electrode to voltage),
The limitation “wherein the electrical current-potential conversion circuit is configured to convert electrical current that passes through the saline solution to an electrical voltage value, proportional to an electrical resistance of the saline solution” is a functional limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the op-amp transimpedance amplifier converts current from the second electrode into voltage (Ln 21-23 on page 9 in Carminati), thus the electrical current-potential conversion circuit (the op-amp transimpedance amplifier) is configured to convert electrical current that passes through the saline solution to an electrical voltage value, proportional to an electrical resistance of the saline solution.
Regarding claim 15, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 10, and is silent to wherein the reactor is a jacketed reactor.
Wang teaches scaling is one of the universal safety problems encountering in the oil production and transportation industry (Introduction). Section 2.4.3 details the dynamic measurement using apparatus comprising a double jacketed reactor, a thermostat water bath, and a mixed solution transport pump. The solution in the double jacketed reactor was stirred and heated to 50°C through the hot water circulation of the outer layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reactor in modified Carminati to a jacketed reactor with controlled temperature, as taught by Wang, since it would allow to maintain and adjust the temperature of the solution (section 2.4.3 in Wang).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carminati, TEK , Keim, and Tietze, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Esser et al. (Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy Setup based on Standard Measurement Equipment, Journal of power sources, 2022, 544, 231869).
Regarding claim 4, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 1, further comprising an inverter circuit symmetrically fed with 15 V through the symmetrical power supply (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the operating voltages of the op-amp of transimpedance amplifier are [Symbol font/0xB1]15V supplied by the symmetrical power supply [Figs. 5.1 and 5.16a in Tietze]; the circuit that connects the symmetrical power supply and the two supply voltage terminals of the op-amp is deemed as the inverter circuit),
Wherein response signals are directly sent to the oscilloscope (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the oscilloscope is used to monitor the response signals [step 4 and Fig.2 in TEK], thus It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to directly connect the output of the op-amp TIA to the oscilloscope to monitor the response signals).
Modified Carminati is silent to wherein the oscilloscope is connected to a computer for real-time visualization of the response signals.
Esser teaches EIS setup based on standard measurement equipment (title). Fig.1 shows a simple setup wherein the current is measured with a Tektronix TCP312 current probe connected to a TCPA300 amplifier the voltage is monitored directly with an oscilloscope (section 3.2.1). Further potential remains in the automation of the data acquisition and processing, for example by using the computer not only for processing but also for the control of the signal-generating unit (section 5.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a computer connecting to the oscilloscope, since it would allow for automation of the data acquisition and processing as taught by Esser. With the above modification, the oscilloscope is connected to the computer and is configured to perform the function of real-time visualization of the measured response signals.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carminati, TEK , Keim, Tietze and Wang, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US20080115925A1). Saveions (Major properties of platinum coated titanium mesh, https://saveions.co.uk/major-properties-of-platinum-coated-titanium-mesh/, December 2024) is used as an evidence for claim 6.
Regarding claim 6, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 3, wherein an electronic part of the sensor connects the pair of electrodes (as outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above, the function generator and the op-amp transimpedance amplifier connect the pairs of electrodes for measuring impedance between the pair of electrodes), wherein the pair of electrodes are of any conductive material (coplanar electrodes microfabricated by gold lithography for impedance measurement [Ln 5- 28 on page 9; Ln 26 on page 11 in Carminati]),
Wherein the pair of electrodes are immersed in the saline solution (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the pair of electrodes are immersed in the saline solution), wherein the pair of electrodes enable electrical conduction between the electrical current-potential conversion circuit and the pair of electrodes immersed in the saline solution (a circuit for reading the currents connected to the second electrode 11, and a transimpedance circuit converts current to voltage [Ln 21-23 on page 9 in Carminati]; as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the second electrode is connected to the inverting input of the op-amp transimpedance amplifier for converting the current from the second electrode into voltage. Thus, the electrodes are configured to enable electrical conduction between the electrical current-potential conversion circuit and the pair of electrodes immersed in the saline solution), the first electrode is connected directly to the function generator output (the processing means 14 are configured to generate a measurement signal transmitted to the electrodes 11 to detect impedance [Ln 25-27 in Carminati]; as outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above, the function generator in Carminati is substituted with the AFG2021 function generator in TEK; thus, the first electrode is connected directly to the function generator output), and the second electrode is connected to an input of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the second electrode is connected to an inverting input of the op-amp transimpedance amplifier for converting the current from the second electrode into voltage).
Carminati is silent to: (1) the conductive material of the electrodes with resistivity to corrosion; (2) the pair of electrodes are rods for vertical fixation for immersion in saline solutions; wherein the rods are connected to the electrical current-potential conversion circuit and functional generator through electrical cables.
Tanaka teaches an apparatus capable of limiting attachment of microorganisms and scale in an environmentally friendly manner and a method of removing scale in the cooling water circulation apparatus (abstract). Tanaka further teaches wherein the pair of electrodes 12A and 12B are rods for vertical fixation for immersion in saline solutions, as shown in Fig.1. The electrodes 12A and 12B are made of titanium and coated with platinum [para. 0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pair of electrodes in modified Carminati to two rods for vertical fixation for immersion in the liquid medium, wherein the rods are made of titanium and coated with platinum, as taught by Tanaka, since Tanaka teaches the suitable alterative configuration and material of the two electrodes for controlling the deposition of the scale [para. 0023]. Electrodes made of titanium and coated with platinum inherently has resistivity to corrosion, as evidenced by Saveions: “Titanium mesh coated with platinum offers the best combination of platinum’s wonderful properties and titanium’s outstanding strength. Corrosion resistance is one of its main characteristics” (Properties).
Fig.1 of Carminati shows the electronic processing unit 13 is connected to the pair of electrodes 11 through two electrical cables for the measurement of the impedance between the electrodes. Carminati further teaches a circuit for reading the current connected to the second electrode and the transimpedance circuit further converts current to voltage (Ln 21-23 on page 9). Fig.2 in TEK shows the function generator AFG2021 connected to the device under test (DUT) for impedance measurement. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the rods (the two electrodes) to the op-amp transimpedance amplifier and the function generator through electrical cables for detecting and measuring impedance.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Carminati, TEK , Keim and Tietze, as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of Wang et al. (The study of a high efficient and environment-friendly scale inhibitor for calcium carbonate scale in oil fields, Petroleum, 2021, 7, 325-334) and Atnafu et al. (New fragmented electro-active biofilm (FAB) reactor to increase anode surface area and performance of microbial fuel cell, Environmental Systems Research, 2021, 10, 31).
Regarding claim 11, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 10, and is silent to wherein the reactor comprises a lid, and wherein the system further comprises rods configured to electrically couple the pair of electrodes to the electrical current-potential conversion circuit, wherein the rods are coupled to the lid of the reactor.
Wang teaches scaling is one of the universal safety problems encountering in the oil production and transportation industry (Introduction). Section 2.4.3 details the dynamic measurement using apparatus comprising a double jacketed reactor 6 comprising a lid, a thermostat water bath, and a mixed solution transport pump, wherein the electrodes are inserted into the jacketed reactor through the lid (see Fig.3). The solution in the double jacketed reactor was stirred and heated to 50°C through the hot water circulation of the outer layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reactor in modified Carminati to a jacketed reactor comprising a lid, wherein the electrodes are inserted into the jacketed reactor through the lid, as taught by Wang, since it would allow to maintain and adjust the temperature of the solution (section 2.4.3 in Wang).
Modified Carminati is silent to further comprises rods configured to electrically couple the pair of electrodes to the electrical current-potential conversion circuit, wherein the rods are coupled to the lid of the reactor.
As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the pair of electrodes are coupled to the electrical current-potential conversion circuit.
Atnafu teaches a reactor comprising a lid and rods configured to electrically couple electrodes disposed in the reactor, wherein the rods are coupled to the lid of the reactor (see Fig.2b; Fig3b shows copper wire is coupled to anode; section of Startup of FAB-MFC; the copper wires [rods] are deemed as the rods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor by providing rods configured to electrically couple the electrodes disposed in the reactor, wherein the rods are coupled to the lid of the reactor, as taught by Atnafu, since it would hold the electrodes in vertical orientation inside the reactor (section of Startup of FAB-MFC in Atnafu).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 11, and Carminati is silent to further comprising a thermostatic bath coupled to the reactor, wherein the thermostatic bath is configured to control the temperature of the reactor.
As outlined in the rejection of claim 11 above, Wang teaches wherein section 2.4.3 details the dynamic measurement using apparatus comprising a double jacketed reactor 6 comprising a lid, a thermostat water bath, and a mixed solution transport pump, wherein the electrodes are inserted into the jacketed reactor through the lid (see Fig.3). The solution in the double jacketed reactor was stirred and heated to 50°C through the hot water circulation of the outer layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a thermostatic bath coupled to the reactor, wherein the thermostatic bath is configured to control the temperature of the reactor, as taught by Wang, since it would allow to maintain and adjust the temperature of the solution (section 2.4.3 in Wang).
Regarding claim 13, modified Carminati teaches the sensor of claim 12, and Carminati is silent to further comprising a magnetic stirring system.
Wang teaches the solution in the double jacketed reactor was stirred with a magnetic stirrer (see magnetic stirrer 5 in caption of Fig.3; section 2.4.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a magnetic stirrer coupled to the reactor, as taught by Wang, since it would yield uniformly dispersed solution (section 2.4.3 in Wang).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 8-16, filed 2/24/2026, with respect to the references and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues at pages 8-10 that the evidence reference Saveions and TEK_AFG2021 are not prior art. TEK_AFG2021 is not relied upon to show a "universal fact," or to show "properties of a material or a scientific truism." If the Office's position is that TEK_AFG2021 is used to show the level of ordinary skill in the art around the relevant time, then such reliance on TEK_AFG2021 is improper because the Office has not established that TEK or TEK_AFG2021 are printed publications that were publicly accessible. Saveions is not prior art because it was published nearly 2 years after Applicant's earliest claimed priority date.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Firstly, TEK is the prior art used in the rejection, and TEK teaches the Tektronix AFG2021 arbitrary/function generator. TEK_AFG2021 is an evidence reference on the functions of the Tektronix AFG2021 function generator. The exact equipment of Tektronix AFG2021 should have the same functions. Note that TEK_AFG2021 is used to show what the same equipment of Tektronix AFG2021 can do. Secondly, Saveions is used as an evidence to show the properties of Titanium mesh coated with platinum. Since both TEK_AFG2021 and Saveions are evidence references, they can be published after the effective filing date of this instant application.
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Applicant argues at pages 10-12 that the Office has not established that any of TEK, Keim, TEK_AFG2021, or TEK_DPO4104 is a printed publication that was publicly accessible. The Office alleges that TEK was published in 2013. Id. at pp. 8-9. However, the only apparent evidence for this alleged publication date is TEK's 2013 copyright date. See TEK, р. 5. The Office alleges that Keim was published September 27, 2020. Id. at p. 9. However, the only apparent evidence for this alleged publication date is the website's listing of September 27, 2020. The only apparent evidence for this alleged publication date is TEK_DPO4104's 2007 copyright date. See TEK_DPO4104, р. 11.
Examiner’s Response #2:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive since each of TEK, Keim, TEK_AFG2021 or TEK_DPO4104 has a date mark of publication. On the left bottom corner of page 5 in TEK, it shows it was published on 04/2013. On the first page of Keim, it shows it is published on 9/27/2020. In TEK_DPO4104 on page 12, it shows the document was updated on 01 June 2007. Since they are published before the effective filing date of the instant application, Examiner believes that they are publicly accessible before the effective filing date. Furthermore, applicant does not provide evidence that these references are not publicly accessible before the effective filing date.
Applicant’s Argument #3:
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues at pages 13-15 that the applied references do not disclose or suggest a pair of electrodes immersed in a saline solution. There is no disclosure or suggestion in Carminati of the specific claimed configuration (a first electrode coupled to an output of the function generator and a second electrode coupled to an input of the electrical current-potential conversion circuit).
Examiner’s Response #3:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the modified rejection for the amended claim 1 above. Note that “the saline solution” further limits the sample (material worked upon) and does not further limit the sensor.
Applicant’s Argument #4:
Regarding dependent claims, applicant argues at page 15 that they are allowable for their dependence on claim 1.
Examiner’s Response #4:
The amended claim 1 is still unpatentable over the prior art of the record.
Examiner suggests applicant to further amend independent claim 1 by reciting wherein the pair of electrodes are made of stainless steel 316; the equipment further comprises a jacketed reactor with a total volume of 160 mL, and the saline solution from a production water of an oil well such as that the saline solution is a positively recited element of the equipment.
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 SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights