DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-6, 10-14, 19-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le Goff et al. (US-20210249676-A1, English equivalent of FR-3082459-A1 provided in IDS received on 12 April 2024).
As to claim 1, Le Goff discloses an electrode (figure 1, bioanode 5) comprising:
an electronically conductive material [0020] at least in part forming a reservoir [0020], said material being permeable and porous [0020]; and
an enzyme compound disposed in the reservoir [0020].
As to claim 2, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, and Le Goff further discloses wherein between 40 and 60% of the internal surface of said reservoir consists of electronically conductive material [0075].
As to claim 3, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, and Le Goff further discloses wherein said conductive material is hydrophilic (abstract).
As to claim 4, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, and Le Goff further discloses wherein said conductive material comprises carbon nanotubes and advantageously multi-walled carbon nanotubes [0020].
As to claim 5, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 4, and Le Goff further discloses wherein said carbon nanotubes have an average diameter ranging from 10 nm to 30 nm ([0020], 10nm).
As to claim 6, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, and Le Goff further discloses wherein said conductive material is in the form of at least one sheet (figure 1, bioanode 5).
As to claim 10, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, and Le Goff further discloses wherein said enzyme compound is in powder form [0033].
As to claim 11, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, and Le Goff further discloses wherein said enzyme compound comprises two enzymes of which one is a GOx [0026-0027].
As to claim 12, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, and Le Goff further discloses wherein the electrode further comprises at least one redox mediator [0035-0039].
As to claim 13, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, and Le Goff further discloses wherein the electronically conductive material is not functionalized by a redox mediator [0035-0039].
As to claim 14, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, and Le Goff further discloses wherein the electrode is being used within a biocell [0054].
As to claim 19, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 12, and Le Goff further discloses wherein the at least one redox mediator is chosen in the group consisting of 1,4-naphtopquinone, 1,10-phenanthroline-5,6-dione, 9,10-anthraquinone, phenanthrene, 1,10-phenanthroline, 5-methyl-1, 10-phenanthroline, pyrene, 1-aminopyrene, protoporphyrines IX, and mixtures of two or plus of these components [0035-0039].
As to claim 20, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 19, and Le Goff further discloses wherein the protoporphyrines IX are hemin [0032].
As to claim 21, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 14, and Le Goff further discloses wherein the biocell is a single-use and/or biodegradable biocell [0054].
As to claim 24, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 4, and Le Goff further discloses wherein said carbon nanotubes are multi-walled carbon nanotubes [0020].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Goff et al. (US-20210249676-A1, English equivalent of FR-3082459-A1 provided in IDS received on 12 April 2024) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Arishima et al. (US-20040197629-A1).
As to claim 7, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, however, Le Goff does not disclose wherein said reservoir comprises conductive material sheets bonded together by adhesive.
Arishima discloses an electrode for a field cell, wherein the electrode comprises conductive material sheets bonded together by adhesive (figure 1, positive electrode layer 1a, positive electrode layer 1b, adhesive layer 4). It is appreciated that the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
As such, 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 electrode of Le Goff to further include that the reservoir comprises conductive material sheets bonded together by adhesive as disclosed within Arishima.
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Goff et al. (US-20210249676-A1, English equivalent of FR-3082459-A1 provided in IDS received on 12 April 2024) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nanaumi et al. (US-20030049518-A1).
As to claim 8, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, however, Le Goff does not disclose wherein said reservoir comprises an adhesive layer having a thickness, said thickness forming a part of the reservoir and defining the height of the reservoir.
Nanaumi discloses an electrode assembly, wherein a reservoir comprises an adhesive layer having a thickness (figure 1, bonding layer 36), said thickness forming a part of the reservoir and defining the height of the reservoir (figure 1, bonding layer 36) to seal the catalyst within the reservoir.
As such, 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 electrode of Le Goff to further include that said reservoir comprises an adhesive layer having a thickness, said thickness forming a part of the reservoir and defining the height of the reservoir to seal the catalyst within the reservoir as disclosed within Nanaumi.
7. Claims 9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Goff et al. (US-20210249676-A1, English equivalent of FR-3082459-A1 provided in IDS received on 12 April 2024) as applied to claim 1.
As to claim 9, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, however, Le Goff does not disclose wherein said reservoir has a total internal volume ranging from 10 µl to 500 µl.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode as disclosed within Le Goff to include that said reservoir has a total internal volume ranging from 10 µl to 500 µl, because it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
As to claim 16, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, however, Le Goff does not disclose wherein said material is in the form of sheets having a thickness ranging from 50 to 500 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode as disclosed within Le Goff to include that said reservoir has a total internal volume ranging from 50 to 500 µm, because it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
As to claim 17, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, however, Le Goff does not disclose wherein said reservoir has a total internal volume ranging from 10 µl to 100 µl.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode as disclosed within Le Goff to include that said reservoir has a total internal volume ranging from 10 µl to 100 µl, because it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
As to claim 18, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 1, however, Le Goff does not disclose wherein said reservoir has a total internal volume ranging from 10 µl to 50 µl.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode as disclosed within Le Goff to include that said reservoir has a total internal volume ranging from 10 µl to 50 µl, because it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
8. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Goff et al. (US-20210249676-A1, English equivalent of FR-3082459-A1 provided in IDS received on 12 April 2024) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Cosnier et al. (US-20180287166-A1).
As to claim 22, Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 14, however, Le Goff does not disclose wherein the biocell is used within an implanted medical device.
Cosnier discloses an electrochemical reactor block for a biocell, wherein the biocell can be used for an implanted medical device [0003] to power the device.
As such, 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 electrode of Le Goff to further include that the biocell is used within an implanted medical device to power the device as disclosed within Cosnier.
As to claim 23, modified Le Goff discloses the electrode of claim 22, however, Le Goff does not disclose wherein the device is a cardiac stimulator, a pump, a sensor, or a bionic implant.
Cosnier discloses an electrochemical reactor block for a biocell, wherein the device is a sensor [0003] to measure glucose within an individual.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode of Le Goff to additionally include that the device is a sensor to measure glucose within an individual as disclosed within Cosnier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JEROME SCHULER whose telephone number is (571)272-8487. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 5712721330. 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.
/J.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights