DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on 3/27/24, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruecha (“Fully Inkjet-Printed Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion-Sensing Devices”, cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 3/27/24) in view of Conover (WO-8800708-A1).
With respect to claim 1, Ruecha (Fully Inkjet-Printed Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion-Sensing Devices) teaches a micro-analysis chip (paper-based potentiometric ion-sensing device in the legend of Fig. 4) comprising a channel region (which corresponds to the continuous hydrophilic flow path, the RE zone, the central sample zone and the ISE zone, as illustrated in Fig. 4, and defined by hydrophobic wax barriers within a paper substrate) which is surrounded by a channel wall (hydrophobic wall in the first column on page 10610) provided inside a porous substrate (paper substrate in the second column on page 10609) (see also page 10613, which recites “the hydrophilic flow channel inside the backside wax printed and laminated paper devices”),
wherein the channel region (continuous hydrophilic flow path, the RE zone, the central sample zone and the ISE zone) includes a first channel chamber (RE zone in Fig. 4) (RE stands for reference electrode), a second channel chamber (ISE zone in Fig. 4) (ISE stands for ion selective electrode), and a channel (the continuous hydrophilic flow path extending from the RE zone, the central sample zone and the ISE zone) connecting the first channel chamber (RE zone) and the second channel chamber (ISE zone) to each other (see Fig. 4),
wherein the first channel chamber (RE zone) includes a reference electrode (the RE zone has a reference electrode) (RE stands for reference electrode), and the second channel chamber (ISE zone) includes a working electrode (the ISE zone has an ion selective electrode corresponding to the claimed working electrode) (ISE stands for ion selective electrode) (see Fig. 4),
wherein the working electrode (ion selective electrode) is covered with an ion-selective membrane (ion selective membrane ISM in the first column on page 10613, which recites “the G/PEDOT:PSS electrodes in the reference and ion selective electrode zones … the ion selective membrane (ISM) was deposited on top of the G/PEDOT:PSS paper electrodes”) containing an ingredient (valinomycin on page 10609) that has ion selectivity (see page 10609, which recites “the ion-selective membranes for the solid contact electrode modification contained 1.0% of ionophore valinomycin for K+”) (K+ stands for potassium ion) (see also page 10610, which recites “sample solution was dropped on the sample reservoir (center square area of the device”) (see also the second column on page 10613, which recites “the sample solution reached the ion selective electrode and reference electrode zones, closing the electrical circuit”).
Ruecha fails to teach that the ion-selective membrane has an exposed surface serving as a dispensing section to which a specimen is dispensed.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Conover (WO-8800708-A1) teaches an ion-selective membrane (ion selective membrane 18 on page 13) having an exposed surface (see Fig. 3) serving as a dispensing section to which a specimen is dispensed (see page 3, which recites “Each ion-selective electrode consists of a membrane-spaced from a contact element. The membrane is comprised of selectively permeable material … Fluid samples are dispensed onto the membrane”) (see also page 14, which recites “the wells 4 extend from the top frame 12 of the body 10 to the membranes 18”) (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-analysis chip as disclosed by Ruecha such that ‘the ion-selective membrane has an exposed surface serving as a dispensing section to which a specimen is dispensed’ as disclosed by Conover with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of facilitating direct and reliable contact between the specimen and the ion-selective membrane for measurement.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruecha (Fully Inkjet-Printed Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion-Sensing Devices) in view of Conover (WO-8800708-A1) in view of Knudson (US4549951).
With respect to claim 2, Ruecha in view of Conover teaches the micro-analysis chip according to claim 1.
Ruecha in view of Conover fails to teach that, in the dispensing section, a height difference is created on the exposed surface of the ion-selective membrane between a central portion and a surrounding portion surrounding the central portion.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Knudson (US4549951) teaches that a height difference is created on the exposed surface of the ion-selective membrane between a central portion and a surrounding portion surrounding the central portion (see the abstract, which recites “a convex dome-shaped membrane containing an electroactive species is deposited over and is directly in contact with the electrode body and a surface of the substrate surrounding the electrode body. The membrane has its greatest height above the electrode body and slopes down to meet the surface of the substrate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-analysis chip as disclosed by Ruecha in view of Conover by modifying the ion-selective membrane to have the convex shape taught by Knudson such that ‘in the dispensing section, a height difference is created on the exposed surface of the ion-selective membrane between a central portion and a surrounding portion surrounding the central portion’, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of more uniform transport of the electroactive species across the active area of the electrode (see column 7, of Knudson, which recites “the convex shape of membrane 14 [sic 16], allows for transport of the electroactive species to be more uniform across the active area of the electrode than other electrode configurations”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruecha (Fully Inkjet-Printed Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion-Sensing Devices) in view of Conover (WO-8800708-A1) in view of Whitesides (US20120181184, cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 3/27/24).
With respect to claim 3, Ruecha in view of Conover teaches the micro-analysis chip according to claim 1, wherein a surrounding of the dispensing section (which corresponds to the exposed section of the ion-selective membrane in Conover) is covered with a regulation member (upper section 12 on page 12 of Conover) (see page 12 of Conover, which recites “a rectangular, square, or clover leaf light transparent, plastic, frame having an upper and a lower section 12 and 14, respectively”).
Ruecha in view of Conover fails to explicitly teach that the regulation member is impermeable by the specimen.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Whitesides (US20120181184) teaches a fluid-impermeable material (see [0074], which recites “a fluid-impermeable material such as a plastic sheet”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-analysis chip as disclosed by Ruecha in view of Conover by forming the regulation member from the fluid impermeable material disclosed by Whitesides such that ‘the regulation member is impermeable by the specimen’ with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of preventing fluid from permeating into undesired regions of the micro-analysis chip.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruecha (Fully Inkjet-Printed Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion-Sensing Devices) in view of Conover (WO-8800708-A1) in view of Shimoide (US 7,105,354).
With respect to claim 4, Ruecha in view of Conover teaches the micro-analysis chip according to claim 1.
Ruecha in view of Conover fails to teach a mark for positioning.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Shimoide (US 7,105,354) teaches a chip comprising a mark for positioning (see column 44 which recites “the sample and reagent are introduced into the chip, … measurement positioning is made precisely … recognizing a positioning mark placed near the groove”) (see also column 12, which recites “the chip consists of a pair of plane plate members made of polymer, and grooves in which fluids flow are made on the surface of at least one of the members”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-analysis chip as disclosed by Ruecha in view of Conover by incorporating a positioning mark as disclosed by Shimoide with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of facilitating precise measurement positioning.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruecha (“Fully Inkjet-Printed Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion-Sensing Devices”) in view of Conover (WO-8800708-A1), as evidenced by Beasley (“Care and Feeding of Computer-Controlled Potentiostats”).
With respect to claim 5, Ruecha (Fully Inkjet-Printed Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion-Sensing Devices) teaches an electrolyte concentration measuring system (see Fig. 4) comprising:
a micro-analysis chip (paper-based potentiometric ion-sensing device in the Legend of Fig. 4);
a specimen supply unit (Fig. 4) configured to dispense a specimen to the micro-analysis chip (see Fig. 4) (see also the first column on page 10610, which recites “sample solution was dropped on the sample reservoir”); and
a measurement unit (potentiostat on the first column on page 10610) configured to measure a potential difference caused on the micro-analysis chip (see the first column on page 10610, which recites “Electroanalytical Measurements. All potentiometric and cyclic voltammetric measurements were performed using a potentiostat (CHI 660A…)”) (A potentiostat[,] an electronic instrument that measures and controls the potential difference between a Working Electrode and a Reference Electrode, see pages 1-3 of Beasley).
wherein the micro-analysis chip includes a channel region (which corresponds to the continuous hydrophilic flow path, the RE zone, the central sample zone and the ISE zone, as illustrated in Fig. 4, and defined by hydrophobic wax barriers within a paper substrate) which is surrounded by a channel wall (hydrophobic wall in the first column on page 10610) provided inside a porous substrate (paper substrate in the second column on page 10609) (see also page 10613, which recites “the hydrophilic flow channel inside the backside wax printed and laminated paper devices”),
wherein the channel region (the continuous hydrophilic flow path, the RE zone, the central sample zone and the ISE zone) includes a first channel chamber (RE zone in Fig. 4) (RE stands for reference electrode), a second channel chamber (ISE zone in Fig. 4) (ISE stands for ion selective electrode), and a channel (the continuous hydrophilic flow path extending from the RE zone, the central sample zone and the ISE zone) connecting the first channel chamber (RE zone) and the second channel chamber (ISE zone) to each other (see Fig. 4),
wherein the first channel chamber (RE zone) includes a reference electrode (the RE zone has a reference electrode) (RE stands for reference electrode), and the second channel chamber (ISE zone) includes a working electrode (the ISE zone has an ion selective electrode) (ISE stands for ion selective electrode),
wherein the working electrode (ion selective electrode) is covered with an ion-selective membrane (ion selective membrane ISM in the first column on page 10613, which recites “the G/PEDOT:PSS electrodes in the reference and ion selective electrode zones … the ion selective membrane (ISM) was deposited on top of the G/PEDOT:PSS paper electrodes”) containing an ingredient (valinomycin on page 10609) that has ion selectivity (see page 10609, which recites “the ion-selective membranes for the solid contact electrode modification contained 1.0% of ionophore valinomycin for K+”) (K+ stands for potassium ion) (see also page 10610, which recites “sample solution was dropped on the sample reservoir (center square area of the device”) (see also the second column on page 10613, which recites “the sample solution reached the ion selective electrode and reference electrode zones, closing the electrical circuit”).
wherein the specimen supply unit (See Fig. 4) is configured to supply the specimen (sample solution) so that at least a part of the specimen overlaps with a surface of the ion-selective membrane (ion selective membrane ISM) covering the working electrode (ion selective electrode) (see the second column on page 10613, which recites “the sample solution reached the ion selective electrode and
reference electrode zones, closing the electrical circuit”), and
wherein the measurement unit (potentiostat) is configured to measure the potential difference between the reference electrode (reference electrode) and the working electrode (ion selective electrode) (A potentiostat[,] an electronic instrument that measures and controls the potential difference between a Working Electrode and a Reference Electrode, see page 1-2 of Beasley) which reflects a difference in ion concentration (see Table 2. “Determination of Sodium and Potassium Ion Concentrations in Diluted Human Urine Samples”) (see first column on page 10610, which recites “potentiometric measurements were initiated 20 s after sample introduction. Potentials were constantly monitored and recorded over 180 s. All experiments with sodium and potassium were performed using NaCl and KCl standard solutions, respectively”) (see Fig. 5, which illustrates Response curves obtained EMF (mV) versus log ak+”).
Ruecha fails to teach that at least part of the specimen overlaps with an exposed surface of the ion-selective membrane covering the working electrode.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Conover (WO-8800708-A1) teaches an ion-selective membrane (ion selective membrane 18 on page 13) having an exposed surface (see Fig. 3) (see also page 3, which recites “each ion-selective electrode consists of a membrane-spaced from a contact element. The membrane is comprised of selectively permeable material … fluid samples are dispensed onto the membrane”) (see also page 14, which recites “the wells 4 extend from the top frame 12 of the body 10 to the membranes 18”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-analysis chip as disclosed by Ruecha such that at least part of the specimen overlaps with an exposed surface of the ion-selective membrane covering the working electrode as disclosed by Conover, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of dispensing a fluid sample directly onto the membrane, facilitating direct contact between the specimen and the membrane.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruecha (Fully Inkjet-Printed Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion-Sensing Devices) in view of Conover (WO-8800708-A1) as evidenced by Beasley (“Care and Feeding of Computer-Controlled Potentiostats”) in view of Kureshy (US5141871).
With respect to claim 6, Ruecha in view of Conover as evidenced by Beasley teaches the electrolyte concentration measuring system according to claim 5.
Ruecha in view of Conover as evidenced by Beasley fails to teach a positioning mechanism configured to determine relative positions between the specimen supply unit and the exposed surface of the ion-selective membrane.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Kureshy (US5141871) teaches a positioning mechanism (microprocessor 62 and pipette mechanism 44 and pipette transport 64, see Fig. 2) configured to determine relative positions between a specimen supply unit (pipette 40) and a selected compartment of a cartridge (see column 10, which recites “the microprocessor 62 determines the position of the dispense level (FIG. 7) so as to compute the additional amount of travel required by the tip 70 to reach the dispense level …. the microprocessor 62 commands the suction control unit 128 to dispense liquid to the selected compartment 106 of the cartridge 22) (see Fig. 6, which has read present pipette position from encoder; read cartridge position from memory; add cartridge position to present position to locate dispense level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-analysis chip as disclosed by Ruecha in view of Conover as evidenced by Beasley by incorporating a positioning mechanism as disclosed by Kureshy, such that the positioning mechanism is configured to determine relative positions between the specimen supply unit and the exposed surface of the ion-selective membrane, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of accurately positioning the specimen supply unit relative to the intended dispensing location to facilitate precise and repeatable delivery of specimen onto the exposed membrane surface.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruecha (Fully Inkjet-Printed Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion-Sensing Devices) as evidenced by Beasley (“Care and Feeding of Computer-Controlled Potentiostats”) in view of Conover (WO-8800708-A1) in view of Ebata (US20190250121).
With respect to claim 7, Ruecha (Fully Inkjet-Printed Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion-Sensing Devices) as evidenced by Beasley (“Care and Feeding of Computer-Controlled Potentiostats”) teaches an electrolyte concentration measuring method using a micro-analysis chip (paper-based potentiometric ion-sensing device in the legend of Fig. 4) (see also the second column on page 10614, which recites “paper-based ISE sensing devices was investigated by measuring the concentration of sodium and potassium ions in human urine. … the measured concentrations were not statistically different from those obtained by the validation method”),
wherein the micro-analysis chip (paper-based potentiometric ion-sensing device) comprising a channel region (which corresponds to the continuous hydrophilic flow, the RE zone, the central sample zone and the ISE zone, as illustrated in Fig. 4, and defined by hydrophobic wax barriers within a paper substrate) which is surrounded by a channel wall (hydrophobic wall in the first column on page 10610) provided inside a porous substrate (paper substrate in the second column on page 10609) (see also page 10613, which recites “the hydrophilic flow channel inside the backside wax printed and laminated paper devices”),
wherein the channel region (the continuous hydrophilic flow, the RE zone, the central sample zone and the ISE zone) includes a first channel chamber (RE zone in Fig. 4) (RE stands for reference electrode), a second channel chamber (ISE zone in Fig. 4) (ISE stands for ion selective electrode), and a channel (the continuous hydrophilic flow path extending from the RE zone, the central sample zone and the ISE zone) connecting the first channel chamber (RE zone) and the second channel chamber (ISE zone) to each other (see Fig. 4),
wherein the first channel chamber (RE zone) includes a reference electrode (the RE zone has a reference electrode) (RE stands for reference electrode), and the second channel chamber (ISE zone) includes a working electrode (the ISE zone has an ion selective electrode) (ISE stands for ion selective electrode),
wherein the working electrode (ion selective electrode) is covered with an ion-selective membrane (ion selective membrane ISM in the first column on page 10613, which recites “the G/PEDOT:PSS electrodes in the reference and ion selective electrode zones … the ion selective membrane (ISM) was deposited on top of the G/PEDOT:PSS paper electrodes”) containing an ingredient (valinomycin on page 10609) that has ion selectivity (see page 10609, which recites “the ion-selective membranes for the solid contact electrode modification contained 1.0% of ionophore valinomycin for K+”) (K+ stands for potassium ion) (see also page 10610, which recites “sample solution was dropped on the sample reservoir (center square area of the device”) (see also the second column on page 10613, which recites “the sample solution reached the ion selective electrode and reference electrode zones, closing the electrical circuit”) and the electrolyte concentration measuring method comprising:
dispensing a specimen (see also page 10610, which recites “sample solution was dropped on the sample reservoir (center square area of the device…)”);
wherein the dispensed specimen (sample solution) permeating the channel (the continuous hydrophilic flow path extending from the RE zone, the central sample zone and the ISE zone) comes into contact with the reference electrode (see the second column on page 10613, which recites “the sample solution reached the ion selective electrode and reference electrode zones, closing the electrical circuit”); and
measuring a potential difference between the reference electrode (reference electrode) and the working electrode (ion selective electrode) which reflects a difference in ion concentration (see first column on page 10610, which recites “potentiometric measurements were initiated 20 s after sample introduction. Potentials were constantly monitored and recorded over 180 s. All experiments with sodium and potassium were performed using NaCl and KCl standard solutions, respectively”) (see Fig. 5, which illustrates Response curves obtained EMF (mV) versus log ak+”) (see also Table 2 “a Determination of Sodium and Potassium Ion Concentrations in Diluted Human Urine Samples”) (A potentiostat[,] an electronic instrument that measures and controls the potential difference between a Working Electrode and a Reference Electrode, see pages 1-3 of Beasley”)
Ruecha as evidenced by Beasley fails to teach that at least part of the specimen overlaps with an exposed surface of the ion-selective membrane covering the working electrode.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Conover (WO-8800708-A1) teaches an ion-selective membrane (ion selective membrane 18 on page 13) having an exposed surface (see Fig. 3) (see also page 3, which recites “each ion-selective electrode consists of a membrane-spaced from a contact element. The membrane is comprised of selectively permeable material … fluid samples are dispensed onto the membrane”) (see also page 14, which recites “the wells 4 extend from the top frame 12 of the body 10 to the membranes 18”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-analysis chip as disclosed by Ruecha as evidenced by Beasley such that at least part of the specimen overlaps with an exposed surface of the ion-selective membrane covering the working electrode as disclosed by Conover, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of facilitating direct and reliable contact between the specimen and the ion-selective membrane for measurement.
Ruecha as evidenced by Beasley in view of Conover fails to teach that an ion contained in the dispensed specimen and selected by the ion-selective membrane comes into contact with the working electrode.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Ebata (US20190250121) teaches an ion contained in a dispensed specimen (see [0040], which recites “an ionophore is a chemical substance having the ability to increase the permeability of an ion to be measured. The ionophore binds to the ion to be measured and passes through the ion-selective membrane, thereby having the ion to pass (namely, carrier ionophore)”) (see also “in a case in which the ion-selective membrane is a potassium selective membrane, examples of the ionophore include valinomycin”) and selected by an ion-selective membrane comes into contact with a working electrode (see [0105], which recites “the sample liquid S contains a potassium ion, which selectively permeates the ion-selective membrane 32A”) (see also [0079], which recites “an ion-selective electrode … provided with the ion-selective membrane, a sample internal electrode (sample electrode) and a reference internal electrode (reference electrode)….the ion-selective membrane … directly disposed on the internal electrode”) (see also [0096], which recites “a section including the ion-selective membranes 32A to 32C and the ion-selective membranes 32D to 32F corresponds to an ion-selective electrode”) (In Ebata, the potassium ion necessarily comes into contact with the working electrode because the ion selective membrane is directly disposed on the internal electrode and the potassium ion permeates the ion-selective membrane thereby necessarily contacting the internal electrode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-analysis chip as disclosed by Ruecha as evidenced by Beasley in view of Conover such that ‘an ion contained in the dispensed specimen and selected by the ion-selective membrane comes into contact with the working electrode’ as disclosed by Ebata, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of enabling direct ionic interaction with the working electrode to facilitate measurement of an ion-response electrical potential and determination of the concentration of the selected ion (see [0089] of Ebata, which recites “the test specimen … for ion concentration measurement of ion species .. in a sample liquid”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruecha (Fully Inkjet-Printed Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion-Sensing Devices) as evidenced by Beasley (“Care and Feeding of Computer-Controlled Potentiostats”) in view of Conover (WO-8800708-A1) in view of Ebata (US20190250121) in view of Lan ("Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion Sensing”, cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 10/18/25).
With respect to claim 8, Ruecha as evidenced by Beasley in view of Conover in view of Ebata teaches the electrolyte concentration measuring method according to claim 7.
Ruecha as evidenced by Beasley in view of Conover in view of Ebata fails to explicitly teach that the specimen is dispensed in a boundary portion between the ion-selective membrane and the porous substrate inside the second channel chamber.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Lan ("Paper-Based Potentiometric Ion Sensing") teaches a specimen is dispensed in a boundary portion between an ion-selective membrane and a porous substrate (see column 1 on page 9550, which recites “when sample and reference solutions are added to the appropriate zones of the EPAD”) (EPAD stands for ion-sensing electrochemical paper-based analytical device) (see also Fig. 2 and the legend of Fig. 2, which recites “The PVC-based ion-selective membrane and the indicator electrode were attached sequentially to the sample zone of the EPAD”) (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 1 legend, which recites “Cl sensing EPAD. The chromatography paper was patterned by wax printing to define the sample zone”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-analysis chip as disclosed by Ruecha as evidenced by Beasley in view of Conover in view of Ebata to dispense specimen in a boundary portion between an ion-selective membrane and a porous substrate as disclosed by Lan such that ‘the specimen is dispensed in a boundary portion between the ion-selective membrane and the porous substrate inside the second channel chamber’, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of facilitating fluid transport and ionic contact between the specimen and the ion selective membrane for potentiometric measurement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BORTOLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3179. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM till 6 PM EST Monday through Thursday.
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 and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571)272-1254. 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 BORTOLI/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights