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 without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-5, and the species of phosphotriesterase and glycerol/choline chloride in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
The response of 05/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are pending in this US patent application. Claims 6-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, and claims 4-5 are withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/06/2026.
Claims 1-3 are currently under examination and were examined on their merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed in this application on 03/08/2024 has been received and considered.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2016/0319232 filed by Noritomi et al., published 11/03/2016, in view of Mirzaei et al., Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry 10(5): 6488-6497 (2020).
Noritomi teaches a measuring cell comprising an enzyme in a nonaqueous solvent, which may be an ionic liquid (see entire document, including paragraphs 0017 and 0032). The enzyme may be organophosphorus hydrolase (page 7, paragraph 0104; cf. claim 1; the Examiner notes that ‘organophosphorus hydrolase’ is a synonym for ‘phosphotriesterase’ as instantly recited). The measuring cell may include a potentiostat device (paragraphs 0170-0171; cf. claim 1).
However, Noritomi does not teach that the ionic liquid is glycerol/choline chloride as recited in instant claim 3.
Mirzaei teaches that deep eutectic solvents are a group of ionic liquid solvents composed of a mixture of cheap polar molecules (liquids or solids) which, when combined, results in a sharp drop in melting temperature (see entire document, including page 6489, paragraph 1). Examination of the activity of organophosphorus hydrolase in glyceline (choline chloride/glycerol) demonstrated that the enzyme exhibited increased activity and stability in glyceline when compared with a buffer (page 6488, abstract; cf. claims 1 and 3).
While Noritomi does not teach that the ionic liquid is glycerol/choline chloride, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use glycerol/choline chloride in the measurement cell of Noritomi because Mirzaei teaches that glycerol/choline chloride is an ionic liquid/deep eutectic solvent that increases the activity and stability of organophosphorus hydrolase, an enzyme that may be used in Noritomi’s measurement cell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that using the glycerol/choline chloride of Mirzaei as the ionic liquid in the organophosphorus hydrolase-containing measurement cell of Noritomi would successfully result in the production of a measurement cell that is able to monitor the products of the reaction of organophosphorus hydrolase.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3 are rendered obvious by Noritomi in view of Mirzaei and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2016/0319232 filed by Noritomi et al., published 11/03/2016, in view of Mirzaei et al., Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry 10(5): 6488-6497 (2020), and Koncki et al., Anal. Chim. Acta 351: 143-149 (1997).
As discussed above, claims 1 and 3 are rendered obvious by Noritomi in view of Mirzaei. In addition, Noritomi teaches that the measuring cell can include a pH sensor for measuring hydrogen ions (paragraph 0192) and that the electrodes may comprise a variety of substances typical for the production of electrodes (paragraphs 0182-0185). However, Noritomi and Mirzaei do not teach a ruthenium dioxide electrode in the measurement cell rendered obvious by their teachings.
Koncki teaches that ruthenium dioxide electrodes are useful in pH sensing applications (see entire document, including page 143, abstract; cf. claim 2).
While Noritomi and Mirzaei do not teach that the pH-sensing electrode in the measurement cell comprising organophosphorus hydrolase dissolved in glycerol/choline chloride rendered obvious by their teachings is a ruthenium dioxide electrode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ruthenium dioxide as the electrode material in the cell rendered obvious by Noritomi and Mirzaei because Koncki teaches that ruthenium dioxide is a useful material for fabricating pH electrodes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that using the ruthenium dioxide of Koncki to make the pH-sensing electrode in the measurement cell comprising organophosphorus hydrolase dissolved in glycerol/choline chloride rendered obvious by Noritomi in view of Mirzaei would successfully result in the production of a measurement cell that could monitor the changes in pH resulting from the reaction of organophosphorus hydrolase.
Therefore, claims 1-3 are rendered obvious by Noritomi in view of Mirzaei and Koncki and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation…103 likely bars its patentability…if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill. A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions……the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 U.S. 2007) (emphasis added).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin M. Bowers, whose telephone number is (571)272-2897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30-5:00.
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, Sharmila Landau, can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/Erin M. Bowers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653 07/16/2026
Prosecution Insights