DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. Claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulie et al. (EP 3168611) in view of Yin et al. (CN 117888253).
Claims 1, 4 and 11. Moulie et al. teach a method for electrochemical detection of residual corrosion inhibitor in a water system (method for determining concentration of a corrosion inhibitor in water sample by measuring current; see abstract), the method comprising:
providing a functionalized working electrode (carbon electrode functionalized with mercury layer surface [0023]);
collecting a water sample suspected of comprising a corrosion inhibitor, wherein the corrosion inhibitor is a nitrogen-based corrosion inhibitor (collecting water sample 10 comprising at least one corrosion inhibitor 40; see claim 2);
adding the water sample to an electrolyte solution in an electrochemical cell (adding sample to electrolyte in an electrochemical cell; see Fig 1 and claim 2, step d [0042][0043]); and
detecting the presence of the corrosion inhibitor in the water sample in the electrolyte solution of the electrochemical cell (detecting presence of corrosion inhibitor in the water sample using cyclic voltammetry and electrolyte of the electrochemical cell; see claim 2, [0029] and Fig 1),
wherein the electrochemical cell includes the functionalized working electrode, a reference electrode, and a counter electrode, and the electrodes are operatively connected to a potentiostat, and wherein the electrochemical cell is utilized at a predetermined potential to produce a measurable current signal to detect the presence of the corrosion inhibitor (the electrochemical cell comprised the working electrode, auxiliary electrode and reference electrode connected to potentiostat to produce current at predetermined potential to measure corrosion inhibitor concentration; see Fig 1 and [0028][0029]).
Moulie et al. do not teach the working electrode is a functionalized fabric sensor, wherein the functionalized fabric sensor comprises a textile fabric having a surface coating comprising metal particles.
However, Yin et al. teach electrochemical device used in pollutant removing technology of industrial waste water comprised of fabric shaped flexible three dimensional electrode loaded with catalyst layer of nanoparticles of cobalt or TiO2 and/or ZnO (see pages 2 and 3). The fabric based electrode have high corrosion resistance and bending resistance over metal electrodes and also have much higher specific surface area than the planar electrode and have high electrochemical reaction efficiency.
Since, Moulie and Yin et al. are to similar field of invention, using electric field in wastewater plant to either remove pollutant or detect inhibitor, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Yin et al. teachings to use fabric based three-dimensional electrode instead of planar metal electrode in Moulie et al. electrochemical device because fabric based three-dimensional electrode have much higher specific surface area than the planar electrode and would provide high electrochemical reaction efficiency.
Claim 2. Yin et al. teach the catalyst layer of nanoparticles comprising cobalt or TiO2 and/or ZnO or any one of nanometer particles with electrochemical oxidation catalytic activity (see page 4). Yin et al. do not explicitly teach the metal particles comprise silver nanoparticles. However, it is well known, the silver nanoparticles have electrochemical oxidation activity and therefore, choosing silver nanoparticles would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and working electrode modified with silver nanoparticles modify would result into improve conductivity and enhance detection of the corrosion inhibitor.
Claim 3. Yin et al. teach the surface coating comprises a sol-gel solution (surface coating comprise polyacrylonitrile; see page 4).
Claims 5 and 6. Moulie et al. teach the corrosion inhibitor is a nitrogen-based corrosion inhibitor (imidazoline; [0052]).
Claims 7 and 8. Moulie et al. teach the electrolyte solution comprises a potassium compound (electrolyte comprises chlorine or KNO3 or salt of chlorine such as KCl [0044][0045]).
Claims 9 and 10. Moulie et al. teach the electrolyte solution further comprises a buffer solution (sample is diluted with buffer such as PBS and electrolyte; [0040]).
Claim 12. Yin et al. teach the textile fabric is a non-woven textile, cotton, polyester, or a blended textile (blended textile comprising organic conductive fiber and insulating fiber; see claim 1).
Claim 13. Moulie et al. in view of Yin et al. teach the textile fabric electrode is cleaned prior to being tested with different samples [0106].
Claim 14. Moulie et al. teach the corrosion inhibitor has a concentration in the water sample in the range of approximately 0.01 - 0.075% (concentration of corrosion inhibitor is generally of 1 to 1000 ppm in water sample [0055] which is equal to 0.001-0.1% and encompass the claimed range).
Claim 15. Moulie et al. teach the water sample is added to the electrolyte solution at a ratio of 1 part water sample to 9 parts electrolyte solution (sample is diluted by 10, 20….100 or more; [0060], thus sample diluted by 90 reads on claimed limitation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7895. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/GURPREET KAUR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759