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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 13-14, 17-20, 23-24, 29, 37-38, 55, and 66 remain pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 13-14, 17-20, 23-24, 29, 37-38, 55, and 66 remain pending in the application in response to the applicant’s amendments to the rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 06/03/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/20/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 5, 17, and 55 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Given the amendments to claims 1, 5, and 17, reference to Dervieux is being relied upon to teach dependent claim 6-7, 13-14, 29, and 38 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13-14, 17, 29, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over E. Dervieux et al, “Carbon Dioxide Sensing—Biomedical Applications to Human Subjects”, Sensors, vol. 22, no. 188, pp. 1-45, Nov. 2021 in view of Vurek et al. (US 5119463 A, published June 2, 1992) and Ince (US 20070232874 A1, published October 4, 2007), hereinafter referred to as Dervieux, Vurek, and Ince, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly for claims 5 and 17, Dervieux teaches a device for carbon dioxide monitoring, the device comprising:
a photoluminescent carbon dioxide-sensitive probe comprising a polymer matrix and a sensing dye (Fig. 7, Glass (which can be replaced with a polymer matrix) and Dye as probe; see Fig. 7 – “The LEDs illuminate a pH sensitive dye, either dissolved in an aqueous solution or a polymer, through a layer of transparent substrate—here a glass slide.”);
a photon source configured to direct photons at the probe (Fig. 7, LEDs as photon source, emitting light (photons, arrows) at probe (Glass (which can be replaced with a polymer matrix) and Dye));
a photodetector configured to detect light emitted from the probe when the photon source directs photons at the probe (Fig. 7, PD as photodetector, detecting light (arrows));
a carbon dioxide permeable light redirection layer including a first surface and an opposite second surface (Fig. 7, PTFE as carbon dioxide permeable light redirection layer; see Fig. 7 – “The dye is protected from ionic contamination by a PTFE, gas-permeable [carbon dioxide permeable], ion-impermeable membrane [light redirection].”),
wherein the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe is positioned between the light redirection layer and the photodetector with the second surface of the light redirection layer facing away from the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe (Fig. 7, probe (Glass (which can be replaced with a polymer matrix) and Dye) is between layer (PTFE) and photodetector (PD), layer (PTFE) has a surface away (second) from probe (Glass (which can be replaced with a polymer matrix) and Dye)),
wherein the second surface of the carbon dioxide permeable light redirection layer is adapted to contact a location and allow carbon dioxide diffusion from the location to the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe (Fig. 7, second surface of layer (PTFE) is in contact with a location (Sensing Medium), second surface of layer (PTFE) allows carbon dioxide (CO2) diffusion from location (Sensing Medium) to probe (Glass (which can be replaced with a polymer matrix) and Dye)).
Dervieux teaches calculating a level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe from an electrical signal received from the photodetector (see Fig. 7 – “(Left) outline schematic of a typical dye-based CO2 sensor.”), and a controller in electrical communication with the photon source and the photodetector to calculate a level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe from an electrical signal received from the photodetector is inherent, but does not explicitly teach a controller.
Whereas, Vurek, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches a controller in electrical communication with the photon source and the photodetector (Fig. 5, signal processor 80 (controller) in electrical communication with LEDs 48, 50, 52 (photon sources) and reflectance detectors 62, 66, and 74 (photodetectors)),
the controller being configured to execute a program stored in the controller to calculate a level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe from an electrical signal received from the photodetector (see col. 15, lines 21-26 "Reflectance detector 66 measures the amplitude of the reflected pulse from LED 48, microprocessor 80 [controller] uses a signal corresponding to this amplitude to determine the degree of absorption of the initial light pulse by the CO2 pellet 18, which is indicative of the level of CO2 [carbon dioxide] around probe 10."),
wherein the polymer matrix comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of acrylate polymers, methacrylate polymers, polyurethane polymers, and blends and copolymers thereof (see col. 8, lines 12-19 "Polymethylmethacrylate-based materials are an especially appropriate matrix component Methylmethacrylate can alternatively be copolymerized...").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified calculating a level of CO2 around a probe, as disclosed in Dervieux, by having a controller in electrical communication with the photon source and the photodetector to calculate a level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe from an electrical signal received from the photodetector, as disclosed in Vurek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to automatically calculate the level of CO2 around the probe.
Dervieux in view of Vurek teaches a photodetector detects a fluorescence response of the sensing dye, but does not explicitly teach where the photodetector detects a fluorescence response of the sensing dye that provides tissue pCO2.
Whereas, Ince, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the photodetector detects a fluorescence response of the sensing dye that provides tissue pCO2 (see para. 0044 "In this embodiment, a CO sensing dye can be impregnated with which CO can be sensed within the cup environment. The dye works to provide a fluorescence decay measurement and the excitation and emission light of this dye in the disposable tip can be measured through the light guide Furthermore, a CO probe may be inserted into the nose of a patient to assess tissue pCO2...").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a photodetector detects a fluorescence response of the sensing dye, as disclosed in Dervieux in view of Vurek, by having the photodetector detect a fluorescence response of the sensing dye that provides tissue pCO2, as disclosed in Ince. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to measure tissue wellness, as taught in Ince (see para. 0043).
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, Vurek further teaches wherein: the polymer matrix comprises a hydrophobic polymer (see col. 13, lines 14-18 "This process results in a 10% solution of oxygen sensitive indicator polymer matrix designated as PT55, which, when solidified, is hydrophobic, but gas-permeable, and is used to form oxygen-sensitive polymer matrix coating 28.").
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for the pellet to not be exposed to aqueous liquids, and therefore the phenol red will not have an opportunity to leak from the polymer matrix, as taught in Vurek (see col. 7, lines 30-33).
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Vurek further teaches wherein: the polymer matrix comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of alkyl methacrylate polymers (see col. 9, lines 33-37 "In an alternative approach, the CO2 sensitive indicator molecule may be covalently bonded with the MMA/MAPTAC [methylmethacrylate/ methacrylamidopropyltrimethylammonium chloride] polymer using the aminoarylalkylamines [alkyl] noted earlier to form the CO2 polymer matrix solution.").
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent or substantially eliminates heterogeneous reaction products, as taught in Vurek (see col. 8, lines 53-60)
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, Dervieux further teaches wherein: the light redirection layer is configured to scatter light (Fig. 7, PTFE as light redirection layer, where PTFE is a material known in the art to inherently scatter light).
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, Dervieux further teaches wherein: the light redirection layer is configured to reflect light (Fig. 7, PTFE as light redirection layer, where PTFE is a material known in the art to inherently reflect light).
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, Dervieux further teaches a partially air-impermeable layer positioned between the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe and the photodetector (see pg. 27, para. 1 – “Finally, the sensor…is enclosed into a supposedly gas-tight body [partially air-impermeable layer]…” to prevent measurements of outside air).
Furthermore, regarding claim 14, Dervieux further teaches a partially air-impermeable outer layer (Fig. 7; see pg. 27, para. 1 – “Finally, the sensor…is enclosed into a supposedly gas-tight body [partially air-impermeable layer]…” to prevent measurements of outside air).
Furthermore, regarding claim 29, Dervieux further teaches wherein: the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe comprises a phase transfer reagent co-embedded with the sensing dye within the polymer matrix (see pg. 9, para. 3 – “It [The dye] can be either … or dissolved in a thin polymer film with the aid of a phase transfer agent.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 38, Dervieux further teaches wherein: the device is an optical transcutaneous device (see Abstract – “…transcutaneous sensing coupled to a dye-based fluorescence CO2 sensing seems to offer the best potential for the development of a future non-invasive clinical CO2 monitor.”).
Claims 8, 37, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Kahlman et al. (US 20160331289 A1, published November 17, 2016), hereinafter referred to as Kahlman.
Regarding claim 8, Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 5 above.
Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince teaches a light redirection layer, but does not explicitly teach where the layer includes a silicone film.
Whereas, Kahlman, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the light redirection layer comprises a silicone film including a pigment (see para. 0060 – “The membrane of the gas-permeable layer [light redirection layer] may be composed of suitable gas and water permeable material. For example, the membrane may be a silicone membrane, or may comprise silicone.”; see para. 0061 "The gas-permeable layer [light redirection layer] may further be composed of filler material which is passable for gas molecules. An example of such filler material is silicone rubber material.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a light redirection layer, as disclosed in Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince, by having the layer include a silicone film, as disclosed in Kahlman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for the gas-permeable layer may function as barrier to light and as permeable layer for small molecules such as CO2, as taught in Kahlman (see para. 0062).
Furthermore, regarding claim 37, Kahlman further teaches wherein: the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe has a storage stability such that no significant decrease of sensitivity when the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe is stored under ambient and dark conditions for at least seven days (see para. 0095 "In a further specific embodiment the present invention provides a chemo-optical sensor unit as defined herein which is provided in a conditioning fluid. The provision may be, for example, a packaging, storing, keeping, Suspending of the chemo-optical sensor in the conditioning fluid. This may be a short term activity, e.g. of10to 60 minutes, or 1to 24 h, or a longer term activity of 1 day to several months or years, e.g. 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, 5 months, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months or more or anytime period in between the indicated values.").
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to keep the chemo-optical sensor unit in state which allows its immediate use or application without previous calibration or preparation steps, as taught in Kahlman (see para. 0095).
Furthermore, regarding claim 66, Kahlman further teaches a heater and/or thermistor (see para. 0123 "...the heating element may be a resistance heater or diode so that the heating element can also be used as a temperature sensor, i.e. heating element and temperature sensor are formed by the same device.").
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce costs and space required for installation of a heater and temperature sensor, as taught in Kahlman (see para. 0123).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince, as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Gallant et al. (US 20140128694 A1, published May 8, 2014), hereinafter referred to as Gallant.
Regarding claim 18, Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 17 above.
Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince teaches directing light at a wavelength, but does not explicitly teach an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye has an isosbestic point at the wavelength.
Whereas, Gallant, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein: an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye has an isosbestic point at the first wavelength (see para. 0186 "A desirable feature of this indicator is that the acidic (associated HPTS form) and basic (dissociated PTS-) forms have different excitation wavelengths at 406 and 460 nm, with an isosbestic point at 418 nm..."; see para. 0189 "The wavelength at which the absorption is the same for the acid and base forms of the dye is called the isobestic point...").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified directing light at a wavelength, as disclosed Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince, by having an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye has an isosbestic point at the wavelength, as disclosed in Gallant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make HPTS suitable for ratiometric detection of pH, as taught in Gallant (see para. 0186).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince, as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Rice et al. (US 20180177443 A1, published June 28, 2018), hereinafter referred to as Rice.
Regarding claim 19, Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 17 above.
Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince teaches calculating the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe, but does not explicitly teach calculating the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe based on a normalization factor.
Whereas, Rice, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the controller executes the program stored in the controller to calculate the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe based on a normalization factor determined by directing photons at the first wavelength at the probe to account for variations in brightness of the polymer matrix (Fig. 1 and 4; see para. 0069 "(4) calculate an intensity ratio, which is the ratio of the short-lifetime intensity to the long-lifetime intensity. Again, the intensity ratio can be used to normalize the analyte value for dynamic and tissue optics variations that occur in the tissue between single-channel sensor 110 and the surface of the skin where reader device 130, 1130 is located.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified calculating the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe, as disclosed in Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince, by calculating the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe based on a normalization factor, as disclosed in Rice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine an accurate analyte value, as taught in Rice (see para. 0069).
Furthermore, regarding claim 20, Rice further teaches wherein: the controller is configured to execute the program stored in the controller to calculate the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe using a fluorescence ratio providing a metric that is proportional to the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe and is normalized using the normalization factor (Fig. 1 and 4; see para. 0069 "(4) calculate an intensity ratio, which is the ratio of the short-lifetime intensity to the long-lifetime intensity. Again, the intensity ratio can be used to normalize the analyte value for dynamic and tissue optics variations that occur in the tissue between single-channel sensor 110 and the surface of the skin where reader device 130, 1130 is located.'"; see para. 0035 "The short-lifetime analyte-sensing dye in single-channel sensor 110 is an analyte-specific dye sensitive to the analyte of interest (e.g., oxygen, glucose, lactate, carbon dioxide (CO )...").
The motivation for claim 20 was shown previously in claim 19.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince, as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Wu (US 6436717 B1, published August 20, 2002), hereinafter referred to as Wu.
Regarding claim 23, Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 17 above.
Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince calculating a level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe from an electrical signal received from the photodetector, but does not explicitly teach calculating the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe by detecting intensity of the emission excited at the first wavelength and the second wavelength.
Whereas, Wu, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the controller is configured to execute the program stored in the controller to calculate the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe by detecting intensity of the emission excited at the first wavelength and the second wavelength (see Abstract '...determining an analyte in which a dye solution is illuminated to induce a first and a second output light at a first and second wavelength, respectively, and the analyte concentration is determined from the measured first and second output intensities.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified calculating a level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe from an electrical signal received from the photodetector, as disclosed in Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince, by calculating the level of carbon dioxide adjacent the probe by detecting intensity of the emission excited at the first wavelength and the second wavelength, as disclosed in Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for the system to be relatively insensitive to potential errors due to variations in the intensity of the illuminating light and to photobleaching of the dye solution, as taught in Wu (see col. 6, lines 1-10).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince, as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Thomas et al. (US 5355880A, published October 18, 1994), hereinafter referred to as Thomas.
Regarding claim 24, Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 17 above.
Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince teaches extracting the amplitude of a signal, but does not explicitly teach extracting the amplitude of a signal via multiple linear regression.
Whereas, Thomas, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the amplitude of the measured sinusoidal response is extracted via multiple linear regression (see col. 24, lines44-45 "Multiple Linear Regression was used to analyze the Gaussian averaged intensity spectra.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified extracting the amplitude of a signal, as disclosed in Dervieux in view of Vurek and Ince, by extracting the amplitude of a signal via multiple linear regression, as disclosed in Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to be used even when there is overlap of spectral information from various components over all measured spectral regions, achieve increased precision from redundant information on in the spectra, can account for base line variations, can more fully model nonlinearities, and can provide outlier detection, as taught in Thomas (see col. 8, line 65 to col. 9, line 4).
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dervieux in view of Gallant and Rice.
Regarding claim 55, Dervieux teaches a method for detecting a concentration of an analyte, the method comprising:
(a) providing a device comprising:
(i) a probe including a polymer matrix and a sensing dye (Fig. 7, Glass (which can be replaced with a polymer matrix) and Dye as probe; see Fig. 7 – “The LEDs illuminate a pH sensitive dye, either dissolved in an aqueous solution or a polymer, through a layer of transparent substrate—here a glass slide.”),
(ii) a first photon source configured to direct photons at a first wavelength at the probe, (iii) a second photon source configured to direct photons at a second wavelength at the probe, wherein the second wavelength is different from the first wavelength (Fig. 7, LEDs as photon sources with wavelengths, emitting light (photons, arrows) at probe (Glass (which can be replaced with a polymer matrix) and Dye)),
(iv) a photodetector configured to detect light emitted from the probe when the first photon source and the second photon source direct photons at the probe (Fig. 7, PD as photodetector, detecting light (arrows)), and
(v) a carbon dioxide permeable light redirection layer including a first surface and an opposite second surface (Fig. 7, PTFE as carbon dioxide permeable light redirection layer; see Fig. 7 – “The dye is protected from ionic contamination by a PTFE, gas-permeable [carbon dioxide permeable], ion-impermeable membrane [light redirection].”),
wherein the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe is positioned between the light redirection layer and the photodetector with the second surface of the light redirection layer facing away from the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe (Fig. 7, probe (Glass (which can be replaced with a polymer matrix) and Dye) is between layer (PTFE) and photodetector (PD), layer (PTFE) has a surface away (second) from probe (Glass (which can be replaced with a polymer matrix) and Dye)),
wherein the second surface of the carbon dioxide permeable light redirection layer is adapted to contact a location and allow carbon dioxide diffusion from the location to the carbon dioxide-sensitive probe (Fig. 7, second surface of layer (PTFE) is in contact with a location (Sensing Medium), second surface of layer (PTFE) allows carbon dioxide (CO2) diffusion from location (Sensing Medium) to probe (Glass (which can be replaced with a polymer matrix) and Dye)); and
(b) calculating a concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on the light emitted from the probe detected by the photodetector (see Fig. 7 – “(Left) outline schematic of a typical dye-based CO2 [analyte] sensor.”).
Dervieux teaches calculating a concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on the light emitted from the probe detected by the photodetector, but does not explicitly teach calculating a concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on an isosbestic point from an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye at the first wavelength.
Whereas, Gallant, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches (b) calculating a concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on the light emitted from the probe detected by the photodetector and an isosbestic point from an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye at the first wavelength see para. 0186 "A desirable feature of this indicator is that the acidic (associated HPTS form) and basic (dissociated PTS-) forms have different excitation wavelengths at 406 and 460 nm, with an isosbestic point at 418 nm..."; see para. 0189 "The wavelength at which the absorption is the same for the acid and base forms of the dye is called the isobestic point...").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified calculating a concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on the light emitted from the probe detected by the photodetector, as disclosed in Dervieux, by also calculating a concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on an isosbestic point from an excitation spectrum of the sensing dye at the first wavelength, as disclosed in Gallant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make HPTS suitable for ratiometric detection of pH, as taught in Gallant (see para. 0186).
Dervieux in view of Gallant teaches calculating the concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe, but does not explicitly teach calculating the concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on a normalization factor.
Whereas, Rice, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein step (b) further comprises calculating the concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on a normalization factor determined by directing photons at the first wavelength at the probe to account for variations in brightness of the polymer matrix (Fig. 1 and 4; see para. 0069 "(4) calculate an intensity ratio, which isthe ratio of the short-lifetime intensity to the long-lifetime intensity. Again, the intensity ratio can be used to normalize the analyte value for dynamic and tissue optics variations that occur in the tissue between single-channel sensor 110 and the surface of the skin where reader device 130, 1130 is located.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified calculating the concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe, as disclosed in Dervieux in view of Gallant, by calculating the concentration of the analyte adjacent the probe based on a normalization factor, as disclosed in Rice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine an accurate analyte value, as taught in Rice (see para. 0069).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Boesterling et al. (WO 1990000572 A1, published January 25, 1990) discloses hydrogel dye film sensing elements capable of detecting pH and pCO2 and to apparatus useful for in vivo measurement of the pH and pCO2 of body fluids, such as blood.
Papkovsky (US 20150177154 A1, published June 25, 2015) discloses the probe includes a support layer with a plurality of separate and independent optically active particles dry laminated onto a first major surface of the support layer forming a sensing area on the support layer to measure the partial pressure of a target-analyte.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights