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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/1/2024, 4/11/2025, 5/23/2025, 8/8/2025, 12/1/2025, 7/9/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I (Claims 1-4, 6-17 and 21) with traverse, and species A (claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-17 and 21) without traverse in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Claim 18 is amended to depend from claim 1. Claims 1 and 18 relate to a product and process of use of said product under 37 CFR 1.475(b)(2) and therefore have unity of invention”. This is not found persuasive because the amended claims 1 and 18 still have the technical feature of a sensor assembly of claim 1. As outlined in the restriction mailed on 5/6/2026, This technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Ritter et al. (US5441625A). Thus, claims 18-20 drawn to the Group II are withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 3, 10-11, 14-15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: please amend “a primary flow path for a fluid sample” to --a primary flow path for [[a]] the fluid sample--; “a property of a fluid sample in the primary fluid channel” to –[[a]] the property of [[a]] the fluid sample in the primary fluid channel--.
Claim 3: please amend “the inlet portion comprising” to --the inlet portion of the secondary fluid channel comprising--.
Claim 10: please amend “a metal and metal salt” to – [[a]] the metal and the metal salt--.
Claim 11: please amend “selected from” to – selected from the group consisting of --.
Claim 14: please amend “a sensing assembly according to claim 1” to – [[a]] the sensing assembly according to claim 1--.
Claim 15: please amend “a property of the fluid sample” to – [[a]] the property of the fluid sample--.
Claim 17: please amend “fluid sample” to – the fluid sample--; “the ratio” to – [[the]] a ratio--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 15, “a signal processing unit configured to process sensor signals received from the reference electrode element and the at least one working electrode”, is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . Prong 1: a signal processing unit (uses the generic placeholder), prong 2: configured to process sensor signals received from the reference electrode element and the at least one working electrode (functional language), prong 3: sufficient structure for performing the function not recited. Therefore, claim 15 invokes 112(f). The corresponding structure for performing the functions is not described in the specification.
Claim 15, “a property determination unit configured to, based at least in part on the sensor signals processed from the at least one working electrode and the reference electrode element, determine a property of the fluid sample”, is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . Prong 1: a property determination unit (uses the generic placeholder), prong 2: configured to, based at least in part on the sensor signals processed from the at least one working electrode and the reference electrode element, determine a property of the fluid sample (functional language), prong 3: sufficient structure for performing the function not recited. Therefore, claim 15 invokes 112(f). The corresponding structure for performing the functions is not described in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the flow of fluid sample ”, which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-17, and 21 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “wherein the inlet portion of the secondary fluid channel is substantially perpendicular to the primary flow path”, and the term “substantially” is a relative term which also renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instant claim, it is unclear what is the angle between the inlet portion of the secondary fluid channel and the primary flow path is considered as substantially perpendicular.
Regarding Claim 15 recites “a signal processing unit configured to process sensor signals received from the reference electrode element and the at least one working electrode” and “a property determination unit configured to, based at least in part on the sensor signals processed from the at least one working electrode and the reference electrode element, determine a property of the fluid sample”, which invoke 112(f) and the specification does not provide the corresponding structures for performing the functions above. Therefore, the scope of claim 15 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites “the reference solution”, which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 16 is indefinite. Claim 17 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites “wherein a ratio of the measurement operation to the flush operation is at least 1:2”, and it is unclear what is the parameter used to define the ratio, such as volume, fluid velocity, duration, or flow rate ratio of the measurement operation to the flush operation. Thus, the scope of claim 17 is indefinite.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ritter et al. (US5441625A). Ritter was provided in IDS filed on 11/1/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Ritter teaches a sensing assembly (an electrode arrangement as shown in Fig.3) for sensing a property of a fluid sample (potentiometric measuring a sample transporting in the sample channel 1 as shown by the arrow 7 in Fig.3 [Col. 3 Ln 24-54]; thus the sensing assembly is configured for the intended use), the sensing assembly comprising:
a primary fluid channel (sample channel 1 in Fig.3) providing a primary flow path for a fluid sample (arrow 7 in Fig.3 showing the direction of the sample flow in the sample channel 1);
at least one working electrode ( measuring electrode 2 in Fig.3 [Col. 3 Ln 24-54]) provided in the primary fluid channel (see Fig.3) configured to sense a property of a fluid sample in the primary fluid channel (a potentiometric measurement of the sample using the measuring electrode 2 and the reference electrode 4 as shown in Fig.3 [Col. 3 Ln 24-54]);
a secondary fluid channel (branch line 3 in Fig.3) adjacent to and fluidly connected to the primary fluid channel along the primary flow path (see Fig.3); and
a reference electrode element (reference electrode 4 in Fig.3) provided in the secondary fluid channel (see Fig.3),
wherein the secondary fluid channel is arranged as a branch from the primary fluid channel so as to limit the flow of fluid sample from the primary fluid channel to the reference electrode element (the reference medium is controlled by a valve 11 as shown in Fig.3 [Col. 3 Ln 49-54]; thus the secondary fluid channel 3 is configured to perform the claimed function of limiting the flow of fluid sample from the primary fluid channel to the reference electrode element by controlling the valve 11).
Regarding claim 2, Ritter teaches the sensing assembly according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the secondary fluid channel extends tangentially relative to the primary flow path (Fig.3 shows at least a portion of the secondary fluid channel 3 extends tangentially relative to the primary flow path 1).
Regarding claim 3, Ritter teaches the sensing assembly according to claim 1, wherein the secondary fluid channel is fluidly connected to the primary fluid channel through an inlet portion of the secondary fluid channel, the inlet portion comprising an opening in a sidewall of the primary fluid channel (Fig.3 shows the secondary fluid channel is fluidly connected to the primary fluid channel through an inlet portion of the secondary fluid channel [the T intersection of the secondary fluid channel 3 and the primary fluid channel 1], the inlet portion comprising an opening in a sidewall of the primary fluid channel [see Fig.3]).
Regarding claim 4, Ritter teaches the sensing assembly of claim 3, wherein the inlet portion of the secondary fluid channel is tangential to the primary flow path (see Fig.3), and wherein the inlet portion of the secondary fluid channel is substantially perpendicular to the primary flow path (see T intersection as shown in Fig.3).
Regarding claim 7, Ritter teaches the sensing assembly of claim 3, wherein the reference electrode element is spaced from the opening of the secondary fluid channel (Fig.3 shows the reference electrode 4 is spaced from the opening of the secondary fluid channel [the opening in the sidewall of the primary fluid channel 1]).
Regarding claim 8, Ritter teaches the sensing assembly of claim 1, wherein the secondary fluid channel is enclosed so as to define a recess (the secondary fluid channel is enclosed so as to define a recess when the valve 11 is closed).
Regarding claim 10, Ritter teaches the sensing assembly of claim 1, wherein the reference electrode element comprises a metal and a metal salt (the reference electrode is configured as an ion-sensitive membrane electrode comprising a chloride-sensitive membrane in direct contact with a silver/silver-chloride wire [claims 1-3]).
Regarding claim 11, Ritter teaches the sensing assembly of claim 10, wherein the reference electrode element comprises the metal and the metal salt selected from (i) Ag and AgCl (silver/silver-chloride wire [claims 1-3]).
Regarding claim 13, Ritter teaches the sensing assembly of claim 1, wherein the sensing assembly further comprises a calibration fluid (reference electrolyte transported by arrow 8 in Fig.3; the interface between sample and reference electrolyte be configured as a simple T-piece, permitting a small amount of KCl electrolyte to be sucked in after the sample has been drawn into the sample channel and come to rest by adequately controlling a suction pump and two valves in order to make sure that fresh reference electrolyte is provide at the interface [Col.2 Ln 65-Col. 3 Ln5]) provided in the secondary fluid channel (KCl reference electrolyte provided by the arrow 8 of the secondary fluid channel 3 as shown in Fig.3), wherein the calibration fluid and reference electrode element form a reference electrode (KCl reference electrolyte and the reference electrode 4 forming a reference electrode).
Regarding claim 14, Ritter teaches a system for sensing a property of a fluid sample (Fig.3 shows a system for sensing a property of a fluid sample transported into the sample channel 1) comprises:
a sensing assembly according to claim 1 (Ritter teaches the sensing assembly according to claim 1, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above); and
a fluid delivery assembly (suction pump 5 in Fig.3 [claims 1 and 5]) configured to deliver fluid to the primary fluid channel along the primary flow path (the suction pump is configured to suck liquid sample into the sample channel 1 as shown by the arrow 7 in Fig.3, thus, the pump 5 is configured to perform the function of delivering fluid to the primary fluid channel along the primary flow path).
Regarding claim 21, Ritter teaches the sensing assembly of claim 1, further comprising an inlet to the secondary fluid channel (the arrow 8 in Fig.3 shows an inlet to the secondary fluid channel 3) .
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 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.
Claims 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and in view of Hofmeier et al. (US4714527A). Hofmeier was provided in IDS filed on 4/11/2025.
Regarding claim 12, Ritter teaches the sensing assembly of claim 1, and further teaches measuring one of the ions present in the supporting electrolyte by means of a suitably selective potentiometric electrode (Col. 1 Ln 34-37).
Ritter does not explicitly teach wherein the potentiometric electrode 2 is an electrode configured to detect the concentration of chloride in a fluid sample.
Hofmeier teaches a sensing assembly in Fig.1 comprising a working electrode 6 disposed in a primary fluid channel (measuring channel 3), and a reference electrode 20 disposed in a secondary fluid channel (capillary 23 within the reference electrode 20 and lines 13/14). If the rotary piston of hose pump 12 is rotated, there is simultaneously a suction of sample liquid 2 from tank 1 into measuring channel 3 and a suction of reference electrolyte 18 (e.g., a bimolar potassium chloride solution) from tank 17 into line 13, 14 and capillary channel 23. This pumping process is continued until an adequate quantity of sample liquid 2 has been sucked into measuring channel 3, so that said sample liquid is in contact with the ion selective electrodes 4, 6 and the reference electrode 20 (Col. 4, lines 5-60). Fig.2 shows the reference electrode 20 wherein the lower end of the capillary channel 23 in Fig.2 is contact with the sample liquid 2 pumped through measuring channel 3, and the upper end of the capillary channel 23 is in contact with the electrolytic channel 28 of the secondary fluid channel (Col. 5, lines 1-28). The working electrode 6 is selective for chlorine ions (Col. 4, line 10). Thus, Hofmeier teaches a sensing assembly comprising a primary fluid channel 3 and a secondary channel (capillary 23 and lines 13/14), wherein working electrode 6 selective for chlorine ions is disposed in the primary fluid channel, and a calibration fluid (reference electrolyte 18) provided in the secondary fluid channel (see Fig.1), wherein the calibration fluid (reference electrolyte 18) and reference electrode element (reference element 29 in Fig.2; Col. 5 lines 29-35) form a reference electrode 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the selective potentiometric electrode in Ritter with an ion selective working electrode which is selective for chlorine ions, as taught by Hofmeier, since it would allow to measure ionic concentration of chlorine ions in the sample liquid (Col.2 lines 31-37; Col. 4 line 10 in Hofmeier). With the substituted ion selective working electrode which is selective for chlorine ions, it is configured to detect a concentration of chloride in a fluid sample.
Regarding claim 16, Ritter teaches the system of claim 14, and further teaches wherein the fluid delivery assembly is configured to deliver the reference solution to the primary fluid channel (a single suction pump configured to such at least one of said liquid sample through said first means in said first down-stream direction and said reference liquid through said second means in said second down-stream direction [claim 5]; The direction of transporting the reference liquid/electrolyte is shown by the arrow 8 in Fig.3 [Col. 3 Ln 32-33]; Thus, the pump 5 is configured to perform the claimed function of delivering the reference solution to the primary fluid channel via the secondary fluid channel).
Ritter does not explicitly teach wherein the system further comprises a calibration fluid reservoir, and the fluid delivery assembly is configured to deliver the reference solution from the calibration fluid reservoir to the primary fluid channel.
Hofmeier teaches a sensing assembly in Fig.1 comprising a working electrode 6 disposed in a primary fluid channel (measuring channel 3), and a reference electrode 20 disposed in a secondary fluid channel (capillary 23 within the reference electrode 20 and lines 13/14). If the rotary piston of hose pump 12 is rotated, there is simultaneously a suction of sample liquid 2 from tank 1 into measuring channel 3 and a suction of reference electrolyte 18 (e.g., a bimolar potassium chloride solution) from tank 17 into line 13, 14 and capillary channel 23. This pumping process is continued until an adequate quantity of sample liquid 2 has been sucked into measuring channel 3, so that said sample liquid is in contact with the ion selective electrodes 4, 6 and the reference electrode 20 (Col. 4, lines 5-60). Fig.2 shows the reference electrode 20 wherein the lower end of the capillary channel 23 in Fig.2 is contact with the sample liquid 2 pumped through measuring channel 3, and the upper end of the capillary channel 23 is in contact with the electrolytic channel 28 of the secondary fluid channel (Col. 5, lines 1-28). The working electrode 6 is selective for chlorine ions (Col. 4, line 10). Thus, Hofmeier teaches a sensing assembly comprising a primary fluid channel 3, a secondary channel (capillary 23 and lines 13/14), and a calibration fluid reservoir (tank 17 in Fig.1), wherein working electrode 6 selective for chlorine ions is disposed in the primary fluid channel; a reference solution (reference electrolyte 18) is delivered from the calibration fluid reservoir to the primary fluid channel by a pump.
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 sensing assembly in Ritter to provide
a calibration fluid reservoir for storing the reference solution, and further modify the fluid delivery assembly configured to deliver the reference solution from the calibration fluid reservoir to the primary fluid channel, as taught by combined Hofmeier and Ritter, since it would allow to store the reference electrolyte for the reference electrode (Col. 4 Ln 26-33 in Hofmeier).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ritter teaches the system of claim 16, and “wherein the fluid delivery assembly is configured to deliver fluid sample to the primary fluid channel in a measurement operation and is configured to deliver the calibration fluid in a flush operation, wherein the ratio of the measurement operation to the flush operation is at least 1:2” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, as outlined in the rejection of claim 16 above, the fluid delivery assembly is configured to deliver the fluid sample to the primary fluid channel in a measurement mode operation from a fluid sample inlet (see arrow 7 in Fig.3 of Ritter) controlled by a valve 12 in Fig.3 of Ritter. The fluid delivery assembly is also configured to deliver the reference solution from the calibration fluid reservoir to the primary fluid channel controlled by a valve 11 (see arrow 8 and valve 11 in Fig.3 of Ritter). Since the transports of the fluid sample and the calibration fluid are controlled by separate valves 12 and 11, the fluid delivery assembly is configured to deliver fluid sample to the primary fluid channel in a measurement operation and is configured to deliver the calibration fluid in a flush operation, wherein the ratio of the measurement operation to the flush operation is at least 1:2, by controlling the valves 12 and 11 of Ritter.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter, as applied to claim 14 above, and in view of Ebejer et al. (US20190134632A1). Ebejer was provided in IDS filed on 11/1/2024.
Regarding claim 15, Ritter teaches the system of claim 14, and is silent to further comprising: a signal processing unit configured to process sensor signals received from the reference electrode element and the at least one working electrode; and a property determination unit configured to, based at least in part on the sensor signals processed from the at least one working electrode and the reference electrode element, determine a property of the fluid sample.
Ebejer teaches a sensing assembly (a pH control device 2 in Fig.3 [para. 0037]) comprising a primary fluid channel (a first flow path 322 in Fig.3 [para. 0036]) providing a primary flow path for the fluid sample (see Fig.3 and [para. 0038]), at least one working electrode (a first set of electrodes 312 in Fig.3 [para. 0038]) provided in the primary fluid channel (see Fig.3, [paras. 0022, 0038 ]), a secondary fluid channel (second flow path 322a in Fig.3 [para. 0036]) adjacent to and fluidly connected to the primary fluid channel along the primary flow path (see Fig.3), a reference electrode element (second set of electrodes 312a including a reference electrode in Fig.3 [para. 0039]) provided in the secondary fluid channel (see Fig.3), a signal processing unit (controller 541 in Fig.5 [para. 0047]; an external microcontroller [e.g., a processing unit] [para. 0030]; the processing device may comprise a data processing unit such as a microcontroller, which may be programmed with low-level computer-program instructions [para. 0034]) configured to process sensor signals received from the reference electrode element and the at least one working electrode (Fig. 5 is a diagram illustrating a set of electrodes 512 that may be implemented in one or more of the pH control devices previous discussed [e.g., pH control devices 1-3]. The detection electrode 525 is connected to the controller 541, such that the controller 541 receives signals obtained via the detection electrode 525 and the reference electrode 526 [para. 0059]. The first pH sensing electrode 523, in combination with a reference electrode 526, produces a voltage that is measured by the controller 541, e.g., in order to detect the concentration of hydronium and/or hydroxide ions at the first pH sensing electrode 523 [para. 0064]. In some embodiments, the reference electrode 526 may be located sufficiently far from the electrode set 512, so as to minimize its exposure to changes in pH caused by pH generation electrodes 521, 522 [e.g., see Figs. 3-4]. The reference electrode 526 may thus be formed in a separate set of electrodes, as in Figs. 3-4 [para. 0070]; the pH reported by the first and second pH sensing electrodes 523 and 524 are then fed back into the controller 541 in order to appropriately modify the pH [e.g., in a feedback control loop] by the pH generation WE 521 [para. 0047]); and a property determination unit (part of the controller 541 in Fig.5 [para. 0047]; the processing device may comprise a data processing unit such as a microcontroller, which may be programmed with low-level computer-program instructions [para. 0034]) configured to, based at least in part on the sensor signals processed from the at least one working electrode and the reference electrode element, determine the property of the fluid sample (The first pH sensing electrode 523, in combination with a reference electrode 526, produces a voltage that is measured by the controller 541, e.g., in order to detect the concentration of hydronium and/or hydroxide ions at the first pH sensing electrode 523 [para. 0064]).
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 system in Ritter by providing a signal processing unit configured to process sensor signals received from the reference electrode element and the at least one working electrode; and a property determination unit configured to, based at least in part on the sensor signals processed from the at least one working electrode and the reference electrode element, determine a property of the fluid sample, as taught by Ebejer, since it would allow to process the measured data [para. 0019 in Ebejer].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims 1-3, 5, 1, 7-12 of granted US12618794B2 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of ‘794 since claim 1 of ‘794 discloses all limitations of instant claim 1.
Instant claim 2 is anticipated by claim 2 of ‘794 since claim 2 of ‘794 discloses all limitations of instant claim 2.
Instant claim 3 is anticipated by claim 3 of ‘794 since claim 3 of ‘794 discloses all limitations of instant claim 3.
Instant claim 7 is anticipated by claim 5 of ‘794 since claim 5 of ‘794 discloses all limitations of instant claim 7.
Instant claim 8 is anticipated by claim 1 of ‘794 since claim 1 of ‘794 discloses all limitations of instant claim 8.
Instant claim 10 is anticipated by claim 7 of ‘794 since claim 7 of ‘794 discloses all limitations of instant claim 10.
Instant claim 11 is anticipated by claim 8 of ‘794 since claim 8 of ‘794 discloses all limitations of instant claim 11.
Instant claim 12 is anticipated by claim 9 of ‘794 since claim 9 of ‘794 discloses all limitations of instant claim 12.
Instant claim 13 is anticipated by claim 10 of ‘794 since claim 10 of ‘794 discloses all limitations of instant claim 13.
Instant claim 14 is anticipated by claim 11 of ‘794 since claim 11 of ‘794 discloses all limitations of instant claim 14.
Instant claim 15 is anticipated by claim 12 of ‘794 since claim 12 of ‘794 discloses all limitations of instant claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Li et al. (Design of electrochemical microfluidic detectors: a review, 2021, 6, 2100569) teaches an electrochemical flow cell (Fig.1). Capuano (US3956094A) teaches a sensing assembly comprising a reference electrode 26 and a sensing electrode 18 disposed in a fluid channel. Gregory (US4592823A) teaches a flushable reference cell for potentiometric measurements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, Luan V. Van can be reached on (571) 272-8521. 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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights