DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/20/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are pending and hereby under examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/03/2026 has been entered.
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:
“seal structure” first recited in claim 1.
The identified structure for the corresponding claim limitation is as follows:
“seal structure” is identified as “the seal structure includes first and second O-rings” (Paragraph 0012) and “In other examples, other suitable seal members or material may be employed as an alternative to (or in addition to) the O-rings 22 and 24 including, but not limited to, other annular-shaped or non-annular seal members, flowable sealing materials, combinations thereof, or the like” (Paragraph 0063).
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.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 17, the claims require the substrate having a “tortuous edge” or an “undulating edge”. It appears a tortuous/undulating edge is a term of degree, and it is unclear what defines the edge as being tortuous/undulating. At what point is an edge tortuous versus not tortuous? The specification describes the tortuous edge pattern as undulating, including a wave pattern having a plurality of peaks and/or a plurality of valleys (Paragraphs 0010-0011). It appears that any edge that is not a straight edge would read on the claim limitation. The limitation of a “tortuous edge” will be interpreted as any edge that is not a straight line. Claims 2-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are also rejected due to their dependence on claims 1, 14, and 17.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio (US 20210378560), hereinafter ‘Antonio’, and Bond (US 20230167902).
Regarding claims 1-4, Antonio discloses a sensor device comprising:
a housing configured to be secured to a patient (paragraph 0073, “The adhesive patch 120 is coupled to the bottom housing portion 124 and affixes the bottom housing portion 124, and thus, the glucose sensor 114, to an anatomy, such as the skin of the user”);
a seal structure located within the housing (Fig. 3, sealing members 116a/b; Paragraph 0068, “The sealing members 116a, 116b comprise O-rings”); and
a sensor probe having at least one substrate supported by the housing (Fig. 3, glucose sensor 114; Paragraph 0002, thin film sensors), the substrate having a first length portion and a second length portion, the first length portion being external to the housing and configured to be inserted into the patient when the housing is secured to the patient (Paragraph 0066, “Generally, a distal end 114a of the glucose sensor 114 is cannulated and positionable in subcutaneous tissue of the user by an insertion needle of the sensor inserter 104 to measure the glucose oxidase enzyme”), the second length portion being in or on the housing and having a section that extends through the seal structure (Fig. 3, base 156 of glucose sensor 114; Fig. 5, wherein base 156 extends through sealing members 116a/b);
wherein the section of the second length portion of the at least one substrate that extends through the seal structure has at least one side edge (Fig. 3, base 156 having side edges).
Antonio fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one side edge has a tortuous edge pattern that enhances a seal effect of the seal structure at the section of the second length portion of the at least one substrate, and wherein the at least one side edge having the tortuous edge pattern is oriented transverse to a compression direction of the seal structure.
Bond teaches an improvement for sealing two mated surfaces through a gasket, wherein at least one sealing layer overlays onto a serrated region 110 containing a plurality of serrations 118 on either face of the gasket (Figs. 4A-E, wherein the serrations have peaks and valleys), the serrated region 110 being useful to provide an effective seal when the sealing layer is pressed into the serrations (Paragraph 0088). As Antonio is concerned with creating a seal about the glucose sensor by compressing the sealing member against the glucose sensor to inhibit fluids from entering the housing, Bond introduces a serrated region that a seal is compressed against to improve or provide a more efficient sealing effect (Paragraph 0013, “The sealing layer is arranged to overlay the serrations so that the sealing layer is compressible into the serrations in use so that a better seal is provided between the gasket and the mating surfaces”; Paragraph 0014, “The textured/rough surface may provide more efficient sealing when the sealing layer is compressed into the serrations”). Examiner notes that the combination of Antonio and Bond modify the glucose sensor substrate’s side edge with the serrations of Bond. Antonio in view of Bond disclose that the serrations would be provided on the top face and bottom face of the glucose sensor, i.e., the compression direction of the seal structure. This configuration would naturally create two tortuous side edges, defined as where the top face of the substrate meets the side faces of the substrate. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “side edge”, the side edge itself is tortuous due to the serrations of the top and bottom faces of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base edge of the glucose sensor in Antonio to include the serrated pattern of Bond to provide a better seal between the surface and the sealing layer.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Antonio and Bond disclose the sensor according to claim 1. Antonio further discloses wherein the seal structure comprises first and second O-rings centered on a central axis (Fig. 5, the central axis defined as the top of second angled surface 134a to the bottom of first angled surface 132a),
the section of the second length portion of the substrate extends between the first and the second O-rings (Figs. 3 and 5, wherein base 156 sits between sealing elements 116a/b; Paragraph 0068, “The sealing members 116a, 116b comprise O-rings”); and
PNG
media_image1.png
431
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the at least one side edge is disposed along a plane that is perpendicular to the central axis of the first and second O-rings (see Fig. 5 of Antonio above, wherein the base 156 lays perpendicular to the sealing members 116a/b in the cross section of the diamond shaped cavity 136).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Antonio and Bond disclose the sensor according to claim 5. Antonio further discloses wherein the housing comprises a base and a cover (Fig. 3, top housing portion 122 and bottom housing portion 124), and wherein the sensor device comprises a stacked arrangement including the first O-ring arranged on the base (Fig. 3, sealing member 116b on bottom housing portion 124), the section of the second length portion of the substrate arranged on the first O-ring (Fig. 3, glucose sensor 114 with base 156 arranged between sealing members 116a/b), the second O-ring arranged on the section of the second length portion of the substrate, and the cover arranged on the second O-ring (Fig. 3, sealing member 116a on base 156 and under top housing portion 112).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Antonio and Bond disclose the sensor according to claim 5. Antonio further discloses wherein the housing includes a base and a cover, wherein the base has a first annular cavity in which the first O-ring resides, and the cover has a second annular cavity in which the second O-ring resides (Fig. 5, diamond shaped cavity 136 for sealing members 116a/b).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Antonio and Bond disclose the sensor according to claim 7. Antonio further discloses wherein at least one of the first and second annular cavities has a cross-section shape that tapers from a narrower dimension toward a depth of a corresponding cavity, to a wider dimension toward an open side of the corresponding cavity to enhance compression of a corresponding O-ring residing therein, when the base and the cover are coupled together (Fig. 5, diamond shaped cavity 136 narrow at the top and bottom and widening towards the base 156).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Antonio and Bond disclose the sensor according to claim 7. Antonio further discloses wherein each of the first and second annular cavities has a cross-section shape that tapers from a narrower dimension toward a depth of a corresponding cavity, to a wider dimension toward an open side of the corresponding cavity to enhance compression of the first and second O-rings, when the base and the cover are coupled together (Fig. 5, diamond shaped cavity 136 narrow at the top and bottom and widening towards the base 156).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Antonio and Bond disclose the sensor according to claim 1. Antonio further discloses wherein the at least one substrate of the sensor probe comprises a first substrate having one or more electrical conductors or electrical components (Fig. 3, printed circuit board assembly 118 with PCB 164, magnet sensor 119, controller 162, and spring contacts in contact with glucose sensor 114; Paragraphs 0069-0070).
Regarding claims 17-18, Antonio discloses a method of making a sensor device, the method comprising:
providing a housing configured to be secured to a patient (paragraph 0073, “The adhesive patch 120 is coupled to the bottom housing portion 124 and affixes the bottom housing portion 124, and thus, the glucose sensor 114, to an anatomy, such as the skin of the user”);
arranging a seal structure located within the housing (Fig. 3, sealing members 116a/b; Paragraph 0068, “The sealing members 116a, 116b comprise O-rings”); and
supporting a sensor probe having at least one substrate supported by the housing (Fig. 3, glucose sensor 114; Paragraph 0002, thin film sensors), the substrate having a first length portion and a second length portion, the first length portion being external to the housing and configured to be inserted into the patient when the housing is secured to the patient (Paragraph 0066, “Generally, a distal end 114a of the glucose sensor 114 is cannulated and positionable in subcutaneous tissue of the user by an insertion needle of the sensor inserter 104 to measure the glucose oxidase enzyme”), the second length portion being in or on the housing and having a section that extends through the seal structure (Fig. 3, base 156 of glucose sensor 114; Fig. 5, wherein base 156 extends through sealing members 116a/b);
wherein the section of the second length portion of the at least one substrate that extends through the seal structure has at least one side edge (Fig. 3, base 156 having side edges).
Antonio fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one edge has a tortuous edge pattern that enhances a seal effect of the seal structure at the section of the second length portion of the at least one substrate, wherein the at least one side edge having the undulating edge pattern is oriented transverse to a compression direction of the seal structure, and wherein the edge pattern comprises a wave pattern having a plurality of peaks and valleys.
Bond teaches an improvement for sealing two mated surfaces through a gasket, wherein at least one sealing layer overlays onto a serrated region 110 containing a plurality of serrations 118 on either face of the gasket (Figs. 4A-E, wherein the serrations have peaks and valleys), the serrated region 110 being useful to provide an effective seal when the sealing layer is pressed into the serrations (Paragraph 0088). As Antonio is concerned with creating a seal about the glucose sensor by compressing the sealing member against the glucose sensor to inhibit fluids from entering the housing, Bond introduces a serrated region that a seal is compressed against to improve or provide a more efficient sealing effect (Paragraph 0013, “The sealing layer is arranged to overlay the serrations so that the sealing layer is compressible into the serrations in use so that a better seal is provided between the gasket and the mating surfaces”; Paragraph 0014, “The textured/rough surface may provide more efficient sealing when the sealing layer is compressed into the serrations”). Examiner notes that the combination of Antonio and Bond modify the glucose sensor substrate’s side edge with the serrations of Bond. Antonio in view of Bond disclose that the serrations would be provided on the top face and bottom face of the glucose sensor, i.e., the compression direction of the seal structure. This configuration would naturally create two tortuous side edges, defined as where the top face of the substrate meets the side faces of the substrate. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “side edge”, the side edge itself is tortuous due to the serrations of the top and bottom faces of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base edge of the glucose sensor in Antonio to include the serrated pattern of Bond to provide a better seal between the surface and the sealing layer.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Antonio and Bond disclose the sensor according to claim 17. Antonio further discloses wherein arranging a seal structure within the housing comprises:
arranging a first O-ring on a base of the housing, the first O-ring having a central opening (Fig. 3, sealing member 116b on bottom housing portion 124);
arranging a portion of the at least one substrate to extend through the central opening in the first O-ring (Fig. 3, glucose sensor 114 with base 156 arranged between sealing members 116a/b);
arranging a second O-ring on the first O-ring, with a central opening of the second O-ring in alignment with the central opening first O-ring (Fig. 5, sealing members 116a/b arranged on each other and aligned with central opening); and
extending a section of a second portion of the at least one substrate between the first O-ring and the second O-ring (Fig. 5, glucose sensor with distal end 114a within sealing member 116b and base 156 between sealing members 116a/b).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Antonio and Bond disclose the sensor according to claim 19. Antonio further discloses wherein:
the housing includes a base and a cover configured to couple together;
arranging the first O-ring comprises locating the first O-ring in a first annular cavity in the base;
arranging the second O-ring comprises locating the second O-ring in a second annular cavity in the cover (Fig. 5, sealing members 116a/b within diamond shaped cavity 136); and
at least one of the first and second annular cavities has a cross-section shape that tapers from a narrower dimension toward a depth of a corresponding cavity, to a wider dimension toward an open side of the corresponding cavity to enhance compression of the corresponding O-ring residing therein, when the base and the cover are coupled together (Fig. 5, diamond shaped cavity 136 tapered from narrow ends spaced away from base 156 and widens toward base 156).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio (US 20210378560), hereinafter ‘Antonio’, and Bond (US 20230167902) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Antonio (US 20170290533), hereinafter “Antonio 2017”, and Hsu (US 20160045158).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the combination of Antonio and Bond disclose the sensor according to claim 10. Antonio as modified fails to disclose wherein the probe contains a second substrate and wherein the second substrate has a coating of a drug or treatment substance on one side.
Antonio 2017 teaches an analogous insertion device, with a sensor and sealing members (Fig. 4), wherein the probe contains a second substrate (Figs. 69A-B, first sensor 6940 and second sensor 6944; Figs. 79, first sensor 7940 and second sensor 7944). A particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in applying this known technique of having two sensors of Antonio 2017 to the known device of Antonio as modified that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Antonio and Bond to incorporate the teachings of Antonio 2017 and the results of having two sensors would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Hsu is in the same field of a measurement device for monitoring biomarkers of a subject (Abstract), wherein a surface of a transdermal sensor is coated with a therapeutic agent (Paragraph 0019) on the contact surface (Paragraph 0025, which Examiner interprets that only one side is coated) which is useful for passive/active transdermal drug delivery (Paragraph 0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Antonio, Bond, and Antonio 2017 to incorporate the therapeutic agent coating of Hsu for passive/active transdermal drug delivery.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Antonio, Bond, Antonio 2017, and Hsu disclose the sensor according to claim 11. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second substrate has a mark or other indicia that identifies the one side provided with the coating of the drug or treatment substance.
However, Antonio 2017 teaches an insertion device wherein visual markings are applied on the insertion device (Figs. 47A-B, markings 4716/4718). A particular known technique of applying a visual marking to convey a message was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this known technique of using a marking to convey a message of Antonio 2017 to the known device of Antonio, Bond, and Hsu that was ready for improvement and the results of indicating a drug-coated side of a substrate would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio (US 20210378560), Bond (US 20230167902), and Van Antwerp (US 7468033).
Regarding claims 14-16, Antonio discloses an electronics substrate comprising:
a body of a sensor having one or more electrically conductive members or electrical components supported thereon (Fig. 3, glucose sensor 114; Fig. 3, printed circuit board assembly 118 with PCB 164, magnet sensor 119, controller 162, and spring contacts in contact with glucose sensor 114; Paragraphs 0069-0070), the body having a length portion having a section configured to extend through a seal structure (Fig. 5, base 156 of sensor 114 passing through seal members 116a/b);
Regarding the claim limitations of claims 14-16, while Antonio discloses a thin film sensor (Paragraph 0002), Antonio fails to explicitly disclose a body of electrically insulating material. Antonio also fails to disclose a section of the length portion of the sensor having at least one side edge having an undulating edge pattern, and the undulating edge pattern comprises a wave pattern having a plurality of peaks and valleys.
Antonio and Van Antwerp are in the same field of analyte sensors. Van Antwerp discloses an insulating layer on the sensor apparatus which is used to protect a portion of the sensor (Col 10, lines 50-62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thin film sensor of Antonio to include an electrically insulating layer of Van Antwerp to protect a portion of the sensor.
Bond teaches an improvement for sealing two mated surfaces through a gasket, wherein at least one sealing layer overlays onto a serrated region 110 containing a plurality of serrations 118 on either face of the gasket (Figs. 4A-E, wherein the serrations have peaks and valleys), the serrated region 110 being useful to provide an effective seal when the sealing layer is pressed into the serrations (Paragraph 0088). As Antonio is concerned with creating a seal about the glucose sensor by compressing the sealing member against the glucose sensor to inhibit fluids from entering the housing, Bond introduces a serrated region that a seal is compressed against to improve or provide a more efficient sealing effect (Paragraph 0013, “The sealing layer is arranged to overlay the serrations so that the sealing layer is compressible into the serrations in use so that a better seal is provided between the gasket and the mating surfaces”; Paragraph 0014, “The textured/rough surface may provide more efficient sealing when the sealing layer is compressed into the serrations”). Examiner notes that the combination of Antonio and Bond modify the glucose sensor substrate’s side edge with the serrations of Bond. Antonio in view of Bond disclose that the serrations would be provided on the top face and bottom face of the glucose sensor, i.e., the compression direction of the seal structure. This configuration would naturally create two tortuous side edges, defined as where the top face of the substrate meets the side faces of the substrate. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “side edge”, the side edge itself is tortuous due to the serrations of the top and bottom faces of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base edge of the glucose sensor in Antonio and Van Antwerp to include the serrated pattern of Bond to provide a better seal between the surface and the sealing layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 8, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Upon further consideration of the claims, and specifically the claim limitation of a tortuous or undulating “side edge”, Antonio in view of Bond appears to disclose this limitation. Per the 112(b) rejection above, the term “tortuous” and “undulating” is interpreted to mean any edge that is not straight. Bond discloses a serration that interacts with the o-ring to form a better seal, i.e., a serrated edge that is not straight.
Further, the term “side edge” is interpreted as the edge where the top face and the side face meet. Antonio in view of Bond disclose that the serrations would be provided on the top face and bottom face of the glucose sensor, i.e., the compression direction of the seal substrate. This configuration would naturally create two tortuous side edges, defined as where the top face of the substrate meets the side faces of the substrate. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “side edge”, the side edge itself is tortuous due to the serrations of the top and bottom faces of the substrate.
Thus, Antonio in view of Bond read on the claimed limitations of a “side edge” having a tortuous edge pattern, and the at least one side edge is oriented transverse to a compression direction of the seal structure. The rejections above have been modified to reflect the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Winkelmuller (US 11619151) discloses a molded seal with sealing ribs 44 that extend orthogonally to a longitudinal extension L1 of the O-ring 31 (See Figs. 10-15, particularly Figs. 12-13).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH MICHAEL HEALY whose telephone number is (703)756-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm 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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/NOAH M HEALY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights