DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/10/2026 has been entered.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon et al. (US 2022/0154244).
Claims 1-4. Conlon et al. teach composition comprising: a solution for calibration or control of an electrochemical sensor (control/calibrant solution for creatinine sensor; [0035] and claims 33 and 42), the solution comprising: one or more analytes having a predefined concentration in the composition; and one or more quinolones (solution comprising EBCB such as fluoroquinolone such as levofloxacin; [0015][0032] wherein the solution is control/calibrant solution which is comprised of predefined concentration of creatine; [0056]).
Conlon et al. teach the second EBCB could be Levofloxacin or Polymxin B or Polymyxin E and the concentration of Polymxin B or Polymyxin E is 20 to 100 mg/L [0024][0031][0032]. Conlon et al. do not teach concentration of quinolones/Levofloxacin is 60 milligrams/liter (mg/L) to 120 mg/L in the composition. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try using Levofloxacin in same concentration range i.e. 20 to 100 mg/L because both Levofloxacin and Polymxin B/E are both used as second EBCB’s and therefore using Levofloxacin in the same concentration range as Polymxin B or Polymyxin E would yield similar results with reasonable expectation.
Claim 5. Conlon et al. teach the solution further comprising: an aqueous liquid (the control/calibrant solution is comprised of aqueous solution; [0082]).
Claims 10 and 11. Conlon et al. teach a container holding the composition of claim 1 (bag comprised of calibrant/control solution [0075]).
Claim 12. Conlon et al. teach container comprises a cartridge (cartridge comprises control solution [0099].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 20 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.
Claims 13-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art, Conlon et al. teach one or more containers comprising biocidal agent such as Levofloxacin in one or more control solutions which is comprised of known concentration of creatine [0075][0056]. Conlon et al. do not teach liquids in different ones of the multiple containers having different concentration of the one or more analytes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7895. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/GURPREET KAUR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights