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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 9-16 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reuel et al. (US 20160146748, IDS filed 6/25/2024).
Regarding claim 9, Reuel et al. discloses a capacitor (elements 15, 20, Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a first electrode (element 24, Fig. 2); a second electrode (element 25, Fig. 2), wherein a first surface of the first electrode faces a second surface of the second electrode (see Fig. 2); a gel structure (element 22, Fig. 2) made of a hydrogel containing a reactant (see par. [0036]) that is disposed between the first and second electrodes (see Fig. 2), wherein the gel structure is configured to react with a target substance which is a target to generate a gas (see par. [0037]); a first insulating layer (element 28, Fig. 2) covering the first surface of the first electrode (see Fig. 2); and a second insulating layer (element 29, Fig. 2) covering the second surface of the second electrode (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Reuel et al. discloses a capacitor, wherein the gel structure is adhered to the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Reuel et al. discloses a capacitor, wherein: the first insulating layer covers an entirety of the first surface of the first electrode; and the second insulating layer covers an entirety of the second surface of the second electrode (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Reuel et al. discloses a capacitor, wherein: the reactant, the first insulating layer, and the second insulating layer are made of a biocompatible material (see pars. [0029-0030]).
Regarding claim 13, Reuel et al. discloses a capacitor, wherein: the first insulating layer covers an entirety of the first surface of the first electrode; and the second insulating layer covers an entirety of the second surface of the second electrode (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Reuel et al. discloses a capacitor, wherein: the reactant, the first insulating layer, and the second insulating layer are made of a biocompatible material (see pars. [0029-0030]).
Regarding claim 15, Reuel et al. discloses a capacitor, wherein: the reactant, the first insulating layer, and the second insulating layer are each made of a biocompatible material (see pars. [0029-0030]).
Regarding claim 16, Reuel et al. discloses a capacitor, wherein the reactant is made of an enzyme of the target substance (see pars. [0029, 0036]).
Regarding claim 19, Reuel et al. discloses an analysis device (see Fig. 4) comprising: a capacitor (elements 15, 20, Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a first electrode (element 24, Fig. 2); a second electrode (element 25, Fig. 2), wherein a first surface of the first electrode faces a second surface of the second electrode (see Fig. 2); a gel structure made of a hydrogel containing a reactant (see par. [0036]) that is disposed between the first and second electrodes, wherein the gel structure is configured to react with a target substance which is a target to generate a gas (see par. [0037]); a first insulating layer (element 28, Fig. 2) covering the first surface of the first electrode; and a second insulating layer (element 29, Fig. 2) covering the second surface of the second electrode (see Fig. 2), wherein the analysis device is configured to analyze the target substance to estimate a concentration of the target substance (see par. [0050]).
Regarding claim 20, Reuel et al. discloses an analysis device, further comprising: a coil (element 12, Fig. 1) included in a resonance circuit along with the capacitor (see par. [0021]).
Regarding claim 21, Reuel et al. discloses an analysis device, wherein the gel structure is adhered to the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Reuel et al. discloses an analysis device, wherein: the first insulating layer covers an entirety of the first surface of the first electrode; and the second insulating layer covers an entirety of the second surface of the second electrode (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 23, Reuel et al. discloses an analysis device, wherein: the reactant, the first insulating layer, and the second insulating layer are made of a biocompatible material (see pars. [0029-0030]).
Regarding claim 24, Reuel et al. discloses an analysis device, wherein the reactant is made of an enzyme of the target substance (see pars. [0029, 0036]).
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.
Claims 17, 18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reuel et al. (US 20160146748) in view of Abreu (US 6,120,460).
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 25, although Reuel et al. does not appear to disclose the insulating layers being made of beeswax, Abreu discloses that utilizing beeswax as insulator is well known in the art (see col. 23, lines 9-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize insulating layers made from beeswax due to its excellent properties, such as sustainability and biocompatibility at low cost, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 17, 18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reuel et al. (US 20160146748) in view of Matsui et al. (US 2016/0073896, IDS filed 6/25/2024).
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 25, although Reuel et al. does not appear to disclose the insulating layers being made of beeswax, Matsui et al. discloses that utilizing beeswax as insulator is well known in the art (see par. [0157]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize insulating layers made from beeswax due to its excellent properties, such as sustainability and biocompatibility at low cost, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Subramanyam (US 7,922,975) discloses a resonant sensor for detecting a specific environmental analyte.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7914. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/M.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
12/15/2025
Prosecution Insights