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 .
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.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 5/24/26, amended claim(s) 1-7 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each of plurality of wire electrodes” (lines 2-3) appears that it should be “each of the plurality of wire electrodes.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0293060 to Duvall et al. (hereinafter “Duvall”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0060812 to Harel et al. (hereinafter “Harel”).
For claim 1, Duvall discloses an invasive multi-electrode electrochemical sensor (Abstract), comprising:
a substrate (“substrate,” Abstract) (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Figs. 14B, 14D, and 15C) (also see 110 in Fig. 4A);
a plurality of wire electrodes (“wire electrodes,” Abstract), wherein each of the plurality of wire electrodes includes an electrically conductive core and an insulating sheath (para [0221]-[0222] and/or [0226]), the insulating sheath partially covers the electrically conductive core so as to expose a proximal end and a distal end of the electrically conductive core (see Figs. 15C, 15D, 16C, 16D, 17C, and/or 17D), each of the plurality of wire electrodes has a substrate section (unlabeled section that includes the substrate, see Fig. 14B, the section being on the right of that figure) and an invasion section (unlabeled section that does not include the substrate, see Fig. 14B, the section being on the left of that figure), the proximal end and the distal end of the electrically conductive core of each of the plurality of wire electrodes are located respectively at the substrate section and the invasion section of each of the plurality of wire electrodes (as can be seen in Figs. 14B-D and 15C-D), the substrate section is provided on the substrate (as can be seen in Figs. 14B-D and 15C-D), the invasion section extends outward from an edge of the substrate (as can be seen in Figs. 14B-D and 15C-D), and the invasion section of one of the plurality of wire electrodes is at least partially wound around the invasion section of each of the other ones of the plurality of wire electrodes in a spiral manner (as can be seen in Figs. 15-B and/or 16A-B);
wherein the electrically conductive core in the invasion section of at least one of the plurality of wire electrodes is different in material from the electrically conductive cores of each of the other ones of the plurality of wire electrodes (para [0224]).
Duvall does not expressly disclose wherein the distal end of the electrically conductive core of one of the plurality of wire electrodes is recessed from an end surface of the insulating sheath to form a recess for filling a material different from a material of the electrically conductive core into the recess.
However, Harel teaches wherein a distal end of an electrically conductive core (112) (Fig. 3E) (para [0300]) of one of a plurality of wire electrodes (i.e., “[e]ach monopolar electrode assembly,” para [0300]) is recessed (as can be seen in Fig. 3E) (also see “wire electrode 112 is recessed…,” para [0302]) from an end surface of an insulating sheath (114) (Fig. 3E) (para [0300]) to form a recess (as can be seen in Fig. 3E) (also see para [0302]) for filling (Examiner’s Note: functional language/intended use, i.e., capable of) a material different from a material of the electrically conductive core into the recess (as can be seen in Fig. 3E).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Duvall wherein the distal end of the electrically conductive core of one of the plurality of wire electrodes is recessed from an end surface of the insulating sheath to form a recess for filling a material different from a material of the electrically conductive core into the recess, in view of the teachings of Harel, for the obvious advantage of allowing any excess adhesive which may have been applied to collect around the insulating material, without contaminating the electrode itself (see para [0363] of Harel).
For claim 2, Duvall further discloses a plurality of gold fingers (1422) provided on the substrate (as can be seen in Figs. 14D and 14B) (also see reference numeral “420” in Fig. 4D and para [0162]-[0163]), wherein the electrically conductive core in the substrate section of each of the plurality of wire electrodes is electrically connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of gold fingers (as can be seen in Figs. 14B and D).
For claim 3, Duvall further discloses wherein the proximal end of the electrically conductive core of each of the plurality of wire electrodes is electrically connected to the corresponding one of the plurality of gold fingers (as can be seen in Figs. 14B and D).
For claim 4, Duvall further discloses wherein a diameter Ø of the electrically conductive core is less than or equal to 25 µm (para [0235]).
For claim 5, Duvall further discloses wherein a diameter Ø of the electrically conductive core is greater than 25 µm and less than 1000 µm (para [0235], Examiner’s Note: a skilled artisan understanding that “about 25 µm thick” would include diameters greater than 25 µm).
For claim 6, Duvall does not expressly disclose wherein a diameter Ø of the electrically conductive core is greater than or equal to 1000 µm.
However, Harel teaches a diameter Ø of an electrically conductive core is greater than or equal to 1000 µm (Fig. 3B) (para [0304]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Duvall wherein a diameter Ø of the electrically conductive core is greater than or equal to 1000 µm, in view of the teachings of Harel, because such a modification is the simple substitution of the diameter of the electrically conductive core that would lead to the predictable result of conducting electrons.
For claim 7, Duvall further discloses a cover plate provided on the substrate such that the substrate section of each of the plurality of wire electrodes is at least partially fixed between the cover plate and the substrate (532, Fig. 5K) (also see 704 and 732 in Fig. 7C) (alternatively, see 314 and 334 in Fig. 3A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/24/26 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objection(s), Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the objection(s) is/are withdrawn.
With respect to the 112 rejection(s), Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments will be treated in the order they were presented. With respect to the first argument, this claim language appears to be supported by Fig. 4 of Applicant’s specification. If that’s true, then Applicant’s invasive sections also extend in an axial direction (as can be seen in Fig. 4 of Applicant’s specification). Therefore, to argue that Duvall’s invasive section “extend in an axial direction and are not wound together in a spiral manner” (see page 7 of the response) would then also contradict Applicant’s own specification since Fig. 4 shows that its invasive sections extend in an axial direction while being wound together in a spiral manner. Notwithstanding the above, Fig. 15B shows a planar view of the spiral configuration of the wires/invasive sections and Fig. 15D shows an isometric view. Note that 1520/1530/1540/1550 all extend into 1510 as evidenced by para [0218] of Duvall. Therefore, if they all extend back into 1510 (shown on the right side of figure 15D), then they are going to axially extend and form a spiral configuration around each other because they are rotationally/circumferentially displaced from one another around a center of the assembly 1500. With respect to the second argument, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not address the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments presented in the response.
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 DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights