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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In view of Applicants argument, see Remarks Page 13, disclosing “Applicant has amended Claim 1 to include the subject matter of Claims 3, 4, 6, and 8 (as alternatives), which the Examiner held to recite allowable subject matter, in addition to part of Claim 5”. All allowable claim limitations of Claim 8 and corresponding base claims are lacking in amended Claim 1 thus the amendment of Claim 1 fails to place the Application in condition for Allowance. See new ground of rejection below, necessitated by amendment.
Further in response to Applicants argument, see Remarks Page 14-15, disclosing “Applicant submits that Shurmer does not teach of suggest using a diode or voltage controlled oscillator as the non-linear element, as claimed in Claim 5”. Examiner agrees. However Claim 5 is not limited to disclosing a diode or voltage controlled oscillator as the non-linear element as Claim 5 further discloses the non-linear element can comprise a translinear loop. The Office Action of 01/15/2026 relies on Shurmer disclosing the non-linear circuit element comprising a translinear loop (translinear loop; Col. 3, Line 62-Col. 4, Line 14 discloses a CHEMFET circuit element thus providing chemical sensing ability of a CHEMFET with the mathematical processing power of translinear principles using the transistors exponential current-voltage characteristics). Thus Shurmer discloses Claim 5 as argued.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 discloses “a filed effect transistor” in Line 16 of the Claim. Amendment to “a field effect transistor” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 discloses “wherein the non-linear response characteristic of the electrochemical cell is a logarithmic response characteristic, and wherein the response characteristic of the compensation circuitry is an exponential response characteristic” which appears as an amendment in Claim 1, and Claim 4 discloses “wherein the exponential response characteristic is provided by a non-linear circuit element of the compensation circuitry” which further appears as an amendment in Claim 1. Therefore Claims 3 and 4 fail to further limit Claim 1 as amended. All subsequent claims are also rejected due to dependency. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11, 33 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shurmer (US 4907441), hereinafter ‘Shumer’, and further in view of Abouatallah et al. (US 20060210850), hereinafter ‘Abouatallah’.
Regarding Claims 1 and 33, Shurmer discloses circuitry for characterizing an electrochemical cell having a first electrode, a second electrode (Col. 3, Line 62-Col. 4, Line 14 With regard to the sensors forming the array 10 in the embodiments of FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, several different types may be used; sensors include chemically sensitive field-effect transistors (CHEMFETS) which depend on a change of potential brought about by the adsorption of molecules into the gate region of the device; known in the art FETS provide potential difference in the gate-source voltage, interpreted as first and second electrode; CHEMFET use chemically sensitive gate to detect ion/molecule changes translating them into electrical signals, thus interpreted as the claim electrochemical cell) and a non-linear response characteristic (Col. 3, Lines 7-13 sensors 10 provides non-linear sensor characteristics), the circuitry comprising: difference circuitry configured to measure a potential difference across the electrochemical cell and output a difference voltage proportional to the measured potential difference (Col. 3, Line 62-Col. 4, Line 14 With regard to the sensors forming the array 10 in the embodiments of FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, several different types may be used; sensors include chemically sensitive field-effect transistors (CHEMFETS) which depend on a change of potential brought about by the adsorption of molecules into the gate region of the device; known in the art FETS provide potential difference in the gate-source voltage; Col. 3, Lines 7-20 combination of sensor, element 14, and circuit 12 provides signal with additional characteristics); compensation circuitry configured to linearise the difference voltage and output a linearised difference signal (Col. 3, Lines 7-20; Clm 3); and a first analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert the linearised difference signal to a digital output (Col. 3, Lines 20-29 The load or divider element 14 is coupled to an A to D converter 16 which is in turn coupled to an input port of a microcomputer 18. It will be appreciated that, with the combined operation of the multiplexer 12, element 14, and converter 16, the microprocessor is presented with a series of digital samples each representing a particular sensor and each having a value which is linearly related to the concentration of a substance or substances to which the array of sensors 10 is exposed); wherein the non-linear response characteristic of the electrochemical cell is a logarithmic response characteristic (Col. 2, Lines 7-14), and wherein the response characteristic of the compensation circuitry is an exponential response characteristic provided by a non-linear circuit element (Col. 3, Line 62-Col. 4, Line 14 discloses a CHEMFET elements which exhibits exponential current-voltage characteristics; translinear loop; Col. 3, Line 62-Col. 4, Line 14 discloses a CHEMFET circuit element thus providing chemical sensing ability of a CHEMFET with the mathematical processing power of translinear principles using the transistors exponential current-voltage characteristics).
Shurmer fails to disclose wherein the non-linear circuit element comprising a bipolar junction transistor (BJT) or a filed effect transistor (FET) configured for operation in a subthreshold mode.
Abouatallah teaches a method, system, and apparatus for testing of an electrochemical stack comprising a field effect transistor (FET) configured for operation in a subthreshold mode (Para [0094] low signal line which is a MOSFET) for the benefit of drawing current from the cell to ground.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide the non-linear circuit element comprising a field effect transistor for operation in a subthreshold mode for the benefit of drawing current from the cell to ground as taught by Abouatallah in Para [0094].
Regarding Claim 2, Shumer further discloses wherein a response characteristic of the compensation circuitry is substantially inverse to the non-linear response of the electrochemical cell (Col. 4, Lines 34-36; Clm 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Shumer further discloses wherein the non-linear response characteristic of the electrochemical cell is a logarithmic response characteristic (Col. 2, Lines 7-14), and wherein the response characteristic of the compensation circuitry is an exponential response characteristic (Col. 3, Line 62-Col. 4, Line 14 discloses a CHEMFET elements which exhibits exponential current-voltage characteristics).
Regarding Claim 4, Shumer further discloses wherein the exponential response characteristic is provided by a non-linear circuit element of the compensation circuitry (Col. 3, Line 62-Col. 4, Line 14 discloses a CHEMFET elements which exhibits exponential current-voltage characteristics coupled to Col. 4, Lines 34-36; Col. 3, Lines 8-20).
Regarding Claim 5, Shumer further discloses wherein the non-linear circuit element comprises a diode or a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) or a translinear loop (translinear loop; Col. 3, Line 62-Col. 4, Line 14 discloses a CHEMFET circuit element thus providing chemical sensing ability of a CHEMFET with the mathematical processing power of translinear principles using the transistors exponential current-voltage characteristics).
Regarding Claim 11, Shumer discloses wherein the difference circuitry comprises a first amplifier comprising: a first input for receiving a first voltage derived from the first electrode; and a second input for receiving a second voltage derived from the second electrode (Col. 3, Lines 7-20 circuit of 10-14 of Fig. 1 may include operation amplifier circuit which comprising first and second inputs coupled within the circuit of 10-14 Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 36, Shumer discloses an electronic device, comprising the circuitry of claim 1 as disclosed above and further wherein the electronic device comprises one of an analyte monitoring device or an analyte sensing device (Col. 3, Lines 62-64; Col. 4, Lines 7-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 12, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 6, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “the non-linear circuit element comprises a bipolar junction transistor (BJT), wherein a base of the BJT is coupled to a collector of the BJT” in combination with all other limitations of the claim would render the claim allowable over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 8, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the non-linear circuit element comprises a field effect transistor (FET) configured for operation in a subthreshold mode, wherein a gate of the FET is coupled to a source or a drain of the FET” in combination with all other limitations of the claim would render the claim allowable over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 12, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the first amplifier is a dual differential amplifier, wherein the first input is a first non-inverting input, and wherein the second input is a first inverting input, wherein the first amplifier further comprises: a second non-inverting input coupled to an output of the first amplifier via a feedback resistor, the second non-inverting input coupled to a first reference voltage via a bias resistor; and a second inverting input coupled to the reference voltage or a second reference voltage” in combination with all other limitations of the claim would render the claim allowable over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 15, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the difference circuitry comprises: a first pulse-width modulated (PWM) ADC having a first input coupled to the first electrode and an output configured the output a first time encoded signal encoded based on a first voltage at the first electrode; and a second pulse-width modulated (PWM) ADC having a first input coupled to the second electrode and an output configured the output a second time encoded signal encoded based on a second voltage at the second electrode“ in combination with all other limitations of the claim would render the claim allowable over the prior art.
Claims 39 and 40 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding Claim 39, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “difference circuitry configured to measure a potential difference across the electrochemical cell and output a difference voltage proportional to the measured potential difference; compensation circuitry configured to linearise the difference voltage and output a linearised difference signal; and a first analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert the linearised difference signal to a digital output, wherein the difference circuitry comprises a dual differential amplifier comprising: a first non-inverting input for receiving a first voltage derived from the first electrode; and a first inverting input of receiving a second voltage derived from the second electrode” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 40, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “difference circuitry configured to measure a potential difference across the electrochemical cell and output a difference voltage proportional to the measured potential difference; compensation circuitry configured to linearise the difference voltage and output a linearised difference signal; and a first analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert the linearised difference signal to a digital output, wherein the difference circuitry comprises: a first pulse-width modulated (PWM) ADC having a first input coupled to the first electrode and an output configured the output a first time encoded signal encoded based on a first voltage at the first electrode; and a second pulse-width modulated (PWM) ADC having a first input coupled to the second electrode and an output configured the output a second time encoded signal encoded based on a second voltage at the second electrode” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights