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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 07/02/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 111257251 A), and further in view of non-patent literature "Amides of the Alkali and the Alkaline Earth Metals" by Juza and non-patent literature "Fact Sheet: Effective chelation with citrates and gluconates" by Zeiler et al. as cited in the IDS received on 02/13/2024. The examiner has obtained a machine translation of the CN document above from Espacenet. The rejection below is based off the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method for measuring potassium in a sample (pg 3, para 0006), comprising: chelating an interferant (‘calcium’, pg 4, para 0010), using an amount of EDTA (pg 4, para 0010), in the sample; mitigating an ammonium interference (pg 4, para 0010), using formaldehyde in the sample (pg 4, para 0010); and measuring, using a tetraphenylborate indicator (pg 4, para 0010), the amount of potassium in the sample by measuring a change in intensity of the absorbance of the chelated sample (pg 4, para 0010).
Zhang does not teach chelating the interferant (‘calcium’, pg 4, para 0010) with sodium gluconate.
However, Zeiler teaches chelating agents which are useful in binding metal ions to prevent them interfering with desired reactions in industries such industrial fields and pharmaceuticals (pg 2, Section: Introduction, para 1). Zeiler further teaches the performance of chelators, such as sodium gluconate (pg 3, Section: The chelating performance of Jungbunzlauer’s TSA and SG vs EDTA, para 1), in relation to calcium, magnesium, and copper ions (pg 3, Section: The chelating performance of Jungbunzlauer’s TSA and SG vs EDTA, para 3). Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang with a sodium gluconate as the chelator as taught by Zeiler for the benefit of higher chelating capacity at higher pH values and higher temperatures then EDTA (pg 7, Section: Summary).
Zhang in view of Zeiler does not teach using alkali hydroxide to mitigate an ammonium interference.
However, Juza teaches the removal of ammonia in liquid form (pg 471, Abstract). Juza further teaches the reaction with liquid ammonia and heavy alkali metal hydroxides (pg 473, Section 3. Ammoniates). Both formaldehyde taught by Zhang (pg 4, para 0010) and alkali hydroxides taught by Juza have the same function of mitigating ammonium in the sample. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective to substitute the formaldehyde as taught by Zhang (pg 4, para 0010) with the alkali hydroxide as taught by Juza (pg 473, Section 3. Ammoniates) to yield the predicable result of mitigating the ammonium in the sample.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Juza and Zeiler teach the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches the interferent being magnesium (pg 4, para 0010).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Juza and Zeiler teach the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches the interferent being calcium (pg 4, para 0010).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Juza and Zeiler teach the method of claim 1.
Zhang and Zeiler do not teach the alkali hydroxide being lithium hydroxide.
Juza teaches teach the alkali hydroxide being lithium hydroxide for the benefit of thermal stability (pg 473, Section: ammoniates). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Zhang with the alkali hydroxide being lithium hydroxide as taught by Juza for the benefit of higher thermal stability (pg 473, Section: ammoniates).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Juza and Zeiler teach the method of claim 1.
Zhang and Zeiler do not teach the alkali hydroxide being sodium hydroxide.
Juza teaches teach the alkali hydroxide being sodium hydroxide for the benefit of thermal stability (pg 473, Section: ammoniates). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Zhang with the alkali hydroxide being sodium hydroxide as taught by Juza for the benefit of higher thermal stability (pg 473, Section: ammoniates).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Juza and Zeiler teach the method of claim 1.
Zhang in view of Juza does not teach the concentration of the sodium gluconate is adjusted to the amount of the interferant in the sample.
Zeiler teaches a concentration of the sodium gluconate is adjusted to the amount of the interferant in the sample (pg 5, Figure 2). Zeiler teaches how one gram of sodium gluconate can chelate 485 mg of magnesium at pH 13 and how that amount changes as the pH and temperature changes (pg 5, Figure 2). Thus, it would be obvious in the art before the effect filing date to modify the teaching of Zhang with the concentration of the sodium gluconate is adjusted to the amount of the interferant in the sample as taught by Zeiler for the benefit of increasing chelating capacity (pg 5, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Juza and Zeiler teach the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches the change in intensity of the absorbance is proportional to a concentration of the amount of potassium in the sample (pg 5, para 0018).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Juza and Zeiler teach the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches the change in intensity of the absorbance is measured using spectrophotometric methods (pg 3, para 0006).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Juza and Zeiler teach the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches the measuring comprising a gravimetric method (pg 3, para 0006).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Juza and Zeiler teach the method of claim 1.
Zhang in view of Juza does not teach the sodium gluconate being introduced to the sample in a form selected from the group consisting of: a solution, a powder, and a prepackaged module.
Zeiler teaches the sodium gluconate is introduced to the sample in a form of a solution for the benefit of using titration method (pg 3, Section: The chelating performance of Jungbunzlauer’s TSA and SG vs EDTA, para 2). Thus, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with the sodium gluconate being introduce to the sample as a solution as taught by Zeiler for the benefit of using the titration method (pg 3, Section: The chelating performance of Jungbunzlauer’s TSA and SG vs EDTA, para 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENA BERA whose telephone number is (571)272-9964. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/H.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights