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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action regarding Application No. 18/526,040 to King et al., assigned to Lockheed Martin Energy LLC, U.S.A., filed 12/01/2023, and published as 2024/0113313 published on 04/04/2024 is in response to applicants arguments/remarks and claims amendment filed 05/12/2026. Applicant’s response has been given full consideration.
Status of the Claims
In the response filed 05/12/2025 applicant has amended the claims of the application. The limitation of claim 2 has been incorporated into claim 1, and the limitation of claim 12 has been incorporated into claim 11. The rest of the claims stand as previously filed.
Currently amended 1, 11
Canceled 2, 12
3.3 Original 3-10, 13-20
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are pending in this application. All pending claims are under full consideration.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-11, 14-15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hodges (U.S. PG Publication 2004/0065562)
The following rejection was presented in the previous non-final Office action dated 01/15/2026 and is maintained in this Office action with the appropriate modification included to address the amendment of claim 1 and 11 and the cancelation of claims 2 and 12.
Regarding claim 1 and 11 Hodges discloses an electrochemical cell and a method using such an electrochemical cell for determining the concentration of a reduced or oxidized form of a redox species (Hodges paragraph 0005). The electrochemical cell including a first working electrode, a first counter electrode, a second working electrode and a second counter electrode (Hodes paragraph 0006, 0013, 0018); the first working electrode and first counter electrode are equivalent to the first pair of electrodes; the second working electrode: and second counter electrode are equivalent to the second pair of electrodes. The electrodes are in contact with the analyte under investigation (Hodges paragraph 0077), equivalent to the pair of electrodes for fluidic contact with the redox species.
The electrochemical cell includes a control device (Hodges paragraph 0074) considered equivalent to the control system. The disclosed electrochemical cell of Hodges including the first pair of electrodes, the second pair of electrodes, the redox species and the control system is considered equivalent to the device recited in claim 1, and the system for determining the concentration of the redox species including the electrochemical cell is considered equivalent to the system recite in claim 11.
Hodges discloses the control system include power sources (Hodges paragraph 0074) and the electrochemical cell detects the amount of analyte in a sample and include sensor such as potentiometric sensor (Hodges paragraph 0059. 0060).
Hodges discloses during determining the concentrations of a reduced or oxidized form applying an electric potential difference between the first working electrode and the first counter electrode and measuring the current; and applying an electric potential difference between the second working electrode and second counter electrode and measuring the current (Hodges paragraph 0006, 0018), wherein electro-oxidation and electro-reduction at the electrodes occur and generating opposite signed currents, equivalent to applying a first potential and second potential to the electrodes and measuring the constant current recited in claim 1 and 11. Hodges discloses a corrected current is obtained and obtaining from the corrected current a value indicative of the concentration of the reduced form or the oxidized form of the species (Hodges paragraph 0006, 0021, 0024, 0025), and the ratio of the current is indicative of each the reduced form and oxidized form of the analyte since the measured corrected constant current is indicative of the concentration of the reduced species and oxidized species (Hodges paragraph 0006, 0021, 0024, 0025).
Hodges discloses the system include the electrochemical cell and the control system, and the control system include microprocessor control device, computer or data storage device (Hodges paragraph 0074), and the controller will inherently have software for calculating different parameters such as the ratio of the measured current, since it is disclosed that a corrected current is obtained and obtaining from the corrected current a value indicative of the concentration of the reduced form or the oxidized form of the species (Hodges paragraph 0006, 0021, 0024, 0025).
Regarding claim 4 and 14 Hodges discloses during determining the concentrations of a reduced or oxidized form applying an electric potential difference between the first working electrode and the first counter electrode and measuring the current; and applying an electric potential difference between the second working electrode and second counter electrode and measuring the current (Hodges paragraph 0006, 0018), considered applying the first and second potential simultaneously.
Regarding claim 5 and 15 Hodges discloses a corrected current is obtained by finding the different between the current following between the second working electrode and the second counter electrode, and a current following between the first working electrode and first counter electrode (Hodges paragraph 0006) wherein the magnitude of the two current to be same in an ideal situation, where there is no difference between the number of species reduced and number of species oxidized.
Regarding claim 9 and 19 Hodges discloses material suitable for the working, counter and reference electrodes include carbon (Hodges paragraph 0061) disclosed among other martials.
Regarding claim 10 and 20 Hodge discloses an electrochemical cell for the determination of the concentration of a redox species (Hodges paragraph 0005). The electrochemical cell including a first working electrode, a first counter electrode, a second working electrode and a second counter electrode (Hodes paragraph 0006, 0013, 0018), and in the art it is known that an electrochemical cell generate electrical power during operation and storing electrical energy when idle.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claim 3, 6-8, 13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges (U.S. PG Publication 2004/0065562) as applied to claim 1 and 11, in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2008/0060196)
The discussion of Hodges as applied to claim 1 and 11 above is fully incorporate here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claims in this section.
Regarding claim 3, 6-8, 13, 16-18 Hodges is silent about the surface area of the working electrode relative to the area of the counter electrode, and specifically that the surface area of the first working electrode is less than the surface area of the first counter electrode as recited in claim 3 and 13, and the surface area of the first working electrode and second working electrode is less than that of the first and second counter electrode as recited in claim 6 and 16, and the surface area of the first and second working electrodes are each less than about 20% of the surface areas of the counter electrodes as recited in claim 7 and 17, or the surface areas are substantially the same as recited in claim 8 an 18.
Wang discloses a sensor for determining the concentration of an analyte accomplished by the use of a sensor having a working electrode and a counter electrode (Wang Abstract, paragraph 0010), equivalent to the claimed device and system. The sensor includes applying a potential between the working electrode and the counter electrode and beginning to monitor the signals generated at the working electrode (Wang paragraph 0050), and the analyte in the sample, e.g., electro-oxidized or electro-reduced, at the working electrode and the level of current obtained at the counter electrode, is correlated as analyte concentration (Wang paragraph 0090). Wang teaches that the surface area of the at least one working electrode and/or the at least one counter or counter/reference electrode are adjusted so that the resulting sensor meets certain criteria (Wang paragraph 0010). Thus, the surface area of the electrodes is each adjusted independently, and such adjustment of the surface area of the electrodes also means adjusting the ratio of their surface area.
Therefore, the surface area of the electrodes is recognized by Wang as a result effective variable, which can be optimized for an optimum performance of the sensor through routine experimentation. Optimizing the surface area of the electrodes also including optimizing the surface area of the electrodes relative to each other as both surface areas electrodes are according to Wang the surface area of the electrodes are adjusted. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized through routine experimentation the surface of the working electrode and the counter electrode in the device and system disclosed by Hodges for optimum operating conditions of the electrochemical cell and the determination of the redox couple concentration (i.e. the oxidized and reduced forms of the analyte, thus optimizing the ratio of their surface area. (See MPEP 2144.05 II).
Response to Argument
In the response filed in 05/12/2026 applicant has amended claim 1 and 11 by the incorporation of the limitation of claim 2 and 12 in claim 1 and 11 respectively. The rest of the claim reman as previously filed on 12/01/2023.
Applicant after presenting the text of amended claim 1 argues that the reference of Hodges does not teach every feature of claim 1 and in particular the features of the control system comprising software that calculates the ratio of the value of first current and the second current between each electrode pair. And concludes that that claim 1 is novel and cites MPEP 2131. Also notes that independent claim 11 shares relevant features with claim 1, and is also novel.
Examiner notes that the reference of Hodges discloses the limitation of the independent claim 1 and 11 as presented above. Hodges discloses as control system that includes measuring the current between the electrodes after applying a suitable potential, and wherein the current is indicative of the concentration of the reduced form and oxidized form of the species under analysis. Hodges discloses the control system may include a microprocessor control device, computer, or data storage device, a display device, an audible alarm device, or other devices or components as are known in the art, which inherently have software that carries out the calculation of the ratio of the currents generated due to applying a suitable potential on the electrodes, and wherein the current is indicative of the is indicative of the concentration of the reduced form and oxidized form of the species under analysis. Therefore, the amendment of claim 1 and claim 11 do not overcome the previously presented rejection of the claims, and which is maintained in this Office action. The Office action is made final.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights