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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority; however, a copy of the foreign priority document was not received.
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.
1. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0033438 to Lan et al. (cited by applicant) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0120250 to Crooks et al.
Lan et al. teaches an analysis device that comprises a porous (paper) substrate that has a channel defined by a printed wax pattern as shown in Figs. 1a-1d. As shown in Figs. 1c and 1d the analysis device has an upper first region and lower second region that are separated by the channel.
Electrodes are formed so as to straddle the first region, the channel wall, and the second region,
wherein a straight line passing through the electrodes always intersects the channel wall when the analysis device is viewed from above.
Lan et al. does not teach that the porous substrate is impregnated with a hydrophobic material to form the channel and first and second regions.
Crooks et al. teaches an analysis device in which a porous substrate has a channel defined therein by a hydrophobic material that permeates the porous substrate and defines a boundary for fluid flow, thereby directing fluid flow along the channel. [0085]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lan et al. and impregnate the porous substrate with a hydrophobic in a pattern that defines the channel and first and second regions in view of Crooks et al.’s teaching impregnating a porous substrate with a hydrophobic material to form boundaries to contain fluids.
Forming the electrodes by printing as taught by Lan et al. would result in the electrodes having at least a part formed inside the porous substrate in the second region in the same manner as applicant forms a portion of the electrodes inside the porous substrate in the second region.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Lan et al. in view of Crooks et al. renders all the limitations of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Lan et al. in view of Crooks et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Lan et al. in view of Crooks et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the first region comprises a region that is permeated by a specimen.
Lan et al. teaches that the upper region is permeated by a sample during use. [0018]
Therefore, Lan et al. in view of Crooks et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Lan et al. in view of Crooks et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the second region comprises a region for connection, and wherein the analysis device is connected to an external measuring instrument through a portion of the electrode that is present in the second region.
Lan et al. teaches that a potentiometer can be used to measure the potential difference (EMF) between the two paper electrodes for aqueous KCl samples with different concentrations of Cl-.
Therefore, Lan et al. in view of Crooks et al. renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Lan et al. in view of Crooks et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that the electrode comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode comprises a reference electrode, and wherein the second electrode comprises a working electrode.
Lan et al. teaches the use of both a reference and a working electrode. [0062]
Therefore, Lan et al. in view of Crooks et al. renders claim 4 obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/MICHAEL STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights