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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because it includes a reference character which is not enclosed within parentheses. In particular, the examiner notes that claim 4 recites in line 3 the reference character “E2” without parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
As to claim 7: The term “close to” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” 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 particular, while the last line of the claim does recite “or equal to a zero-current current equilibrium potential”, this is preceded by “at a potential close to” and accordingly the scope of the claim cannot be determined because it is unclear from the claim what potential Applicant intends to constitute a potential that is “close to” a zero-current equilibrium potential. Although Applicant’s as-filed specification page 4, ¶ 20 recites “at a potential close to or equal to a zero-current equilibrium potential”, this does not provide any elucidating information regarding the scope of what potential may constitute one which is “close to” a zero-current equilibrium potential.
Because the claim scope cannot be ascertained at this time for the above noted reasons, a proper and complete prior art search for the claimed subject matter of claim 7 could not be carried out at this time. The examiner recommends responding to this rejection by either explaining how Applicant believes the claim scope to be clear, preferably by providing evidence from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claim to obviate the instant 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. Should Applicant’s reply overcome said rejection, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 7 will be withdrawn and a prior art search for the claimed subject matter would be carried out at that time.
As to claim 10: The claim recites in both lines 3 and 4, instances of “respectively” but it is unclear as to which element is being referred in both cases. For instance, in lines 2 and 3, the limitations are recited as “with the first, respectively, the second, electrochemical cell” and accordingly it is unclear to which element the “respectively” is referring due to the use of the several commas delineating several different claimed elements. This confusion is compounded in lines 3 and 4 which also recites in part “being disposed in the first, respectively, the second, microfluidic channel”.
Because the claims scopes of claims 7 and 10 cannot be ascertained at this time for the above noted reasons, a proper and complete prior art search for the claimed subject matter of said claims could not be carried out at this time. The examiner recommends responding to this rejection by either explaining how Applicant believes the claim scopes to be clear, preferably by providing evidence from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claims to obviate the above noted 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Should Applicant’s reply overcome said rejections, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 7 and 10 will be withdrawn and a prior art search for the claimed subject matter would be carried out at that time.
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 (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 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.
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 1-3, 8, 9, 13-15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riviere et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0337945 A1 (hereafter Riviere), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 11 December 2024.
As to claim 1: Riviere discloses a microfluidic electrochemical device (10; see fig. 7 and ¶ 101) for measuring a volume flow rate of a fluid (see ¶ 105), the fluid comprising a solvent (see ¶ 103 regarding the disclosed sweat), the microfluidic electrochemical device (10) comprising:
at least one microfluidic channel (not labeled but see ¶ 103 which notes that the circuit 9 is a fluidic circuit and constitutes a microfluidic electrochemical cell and therefore necessarily has a channel for fluid to pass therethrough such as the disclosed sweat) configured to allow the fluid to flow in a flow direction (see ¶ 103);
at least one electrochemical cell disposed in the at least one microfluidic channel (not labeled but see ¶ 103), the electrochemical cell comprising a first working electrode (20; see fig. 7 and ¶ 102) and at least one second working electrode (23; see fig. 7 and ¶ 102), with said at least one second working electrode (23) being spaced apart from the first working electrode (20) by an inter-electrode distance (see fig. 7) in the flow direction (see fig. 7 and ¶ 102-103) , at least one counter-electrode (30; see fig. 7 and ¶ 102) and at least one reference (21; see fig. 7 and ¶ 102).
The embodiment of Riviere disclosed thus far does not explicitly teach:
an electrochemical amperometry measurement system configured to bias the first working electrode at a first electrode potential and the second working electrode at a second electrode potential, so that each of said first and second working electrodes produces an amperometric signal by oxidation reaction or by reduction reaction of the solvent or with at least one chemical species forming a redox couple with the solvent; and
the electrochemical amperometry measurement system being configured to determine the volume flow rate of the fluid in the microfluidic channel based on the inter-electrode distance and a time delay between a variation in the amperometric signal produced by the first working electrode and a variation in the amperometric signal produced by the second working electrode.
Another embodiment of Riviere teaches:
an electrochemical amperometry measurement system (not labeled but see fig. 6 and ¶ 78) configured to bias the first working electrode at a first electrode potential and the second working electrode at a second electrode potential (see ¶ 76), so that each of said first and second working electrodes produces an amperometric signal by oxidation reaction or by reduction reaction of the solvent or with at least one chemical species forming a redox couple with the solvent (see ¶ 79 and 80); and
the electrochemical amperometry measurement system being configured to determine the volume flow rate of the fluid in the microfluidic channel based on the inter-electrode distance and a time delay between a variation in the amperometric signal produced by the first working electrode and a variation in the amperometric signal produced by the second working electrode (see ¶ 76 and 78 in view of further details in ¶ 105 and 106 regarding the use of microelectrodes).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of Riviere depicted in fig. 7 by including an electrochemical amperometry measurement system configured to bias the first working electrode at a first electrode potential and the second working electrode at a second electrode potential, so that each of said first and second working electrodes produces an amperometric signal by oxidation reaction or by reduction reaction of the solvent or with at least one chemical species forming a redox couple with the solvent; and the electrochemical amperometry measurement system being configured to determine the volume flow rate of the fluid in the microfluidic channel based on the inter-electrode distance and a time delay between a variation in the amperometric signal produced by the first working electrode and a variation in the amperometric signal produced by the second working electrode because such a sensor is capable not only of detecting a flow rate such as described in ¶ 105 but can also be utilized detect and quantify instantaneous concentration of certain chemical species, such as suggested in ¶ 77. Accordingly, such a combined sensing device could determine not only flow rate through a microfluid channel but could also provide the useful benefit of determining whether any chemical reactions are occurring therein and accordingly could provide useful information to a user such as physiological processes which could be affecting such reactions.
As to claim 2: Riviere teaches the microfluidic electrochemical device (10; see fig. 7) as claimed in claim 1 wherein the solvent is water H2O (see ¶ 103).
As to claim 3: Riviere teaches the microfluidic electrochemical device (10; see fig. 7) as claimed in claim 2, wherein the fluid is sweat from a human or animal subject (see fig. 1 and ¶ 66 in view of further details in ¶ 103).
As to claim 8: Riviere teaches the microfluidic electrochemical device (10; see fig. 7) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an isolating support (not labeled but see the horizontal surface in fig. 7 upon which each of the electrodes are disposed), said at least one microfluidic channel being formed in the isolating support (not labeled but see ¶ 103), the first working electrode (20; see fig. 7 and ¶ 102) and said at least one second working electrode (23; see fig. 7 and ¶ 102) being formed by metal deposits of platinum or platinum black on said isolating support (see ¶ 102).
As to claim 9: Riviere teaches the microfluidic electrochemical device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the counter-electrode (30; see fig. 7 and ¶ 102) is positioned downstream of the working electrodes (20 and 23; see fig. 7) in the flow direction, and wherein the reference electrode (21; see fig. 7 and ¶ 102) is positioned upstream of said working electrodes in said flow direction (see fig. 7).
As to claim 13: Riviere teaches an apparatus (1; see fig. 1 and ¶ 66) intended to be placed on an investigation zone of an epidermis of a human or animal subject (see fig. 1 and ¶ 66) in order to measure a quantitative sweating parameter of the subject (see ¶ 66), said apparatus comprising:
a structure defining a microfluidic electrochemical device as claimed in claim 1 (see fig. 7), the structure comprising an inlet orifice defining the investigation zone and allowing through sweat from the epidermis (see figs. 5 and 6 as well as details in ¶ 71 and 72), the at least one microfluidic channel of the microfluidic electrochemical device being connected to the inlet orifice (see ¶ 103; the microfluidic channel must necessarily be connected to the inlet in order to allow the sweat to enter therein as disclosed); and
an electronic processing device (15; see ¶ 118) configured to determine the quantitative sweating parameter of said human or animal subject based on measurements of the volume flow rate of sweat carried out by the microfluidic electrochemical device (see ¶ 118 in view of ¶ 103-105).
As to claim 14: The apparatus (see fig. 1) as claimed in claim 13, wherein the quantitative sweating parameter of said human or animal subject is a sweating rate (see ¶ 103 and 105 in view of ¶ 66).
As to claim 15: The apparatus (see fig. 1) as claimed in claim 13, wherein the structure is a multi-layer structure (see fig. 5) comprising a lower layer (the lower most depicted layer of element 5 in fig. 5) and at least one layer superimposed on the lower layer (the vertically highest depicted layer of element 5 depicted in fig. 5), with the microfluidic electrochemical device extending parallel to the lower layer, the lower layer comprising said inlet orifice (see fig. 7 and ¶ 100-101).
As to claim 19: The apparatus (see fig. 1) as claimed in claim 13, further comprising a communication device (17; see ¶ 119) configured to transmit one or more measurement signals produced by the microfluidic electrochemical device (see ¶ 119).
As to claim 20: The apparatus (see fig. 1) as claimed in claim 13, further comprising a gyroscopic module and/or at least one accelerometer for detecting a state of activity of said human or animal subject (not labeled but see ¶ 125).
As to claim 21: The apparatus (see fig. 1) as claimed in claim 13, further comprising a temperature sensor configured to measure the temperature of the epidermis of said human or animal subject (not labeled but see ¶ 125).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riviere et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0337945 A1 (hereafter Riviere), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 11 December 2024 in view of Spaid et al. US Pat 6,990,851 B2 (hereafter Spaid).
As to claim 12: Riviere teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including an electrochemical amperometry measurement system (not labeled but see fig. 6 and ¶ 78) that is configured to determine a volume flow rate of a microfluidic channel in a flow direction (see ¶ 76 and 78 in view of further details in ¶ 105 and 106 regarding the use of microelectrodes), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the electrochemical amperometry measurement system is configured to determine the volume flow rate as a function of a cross-sectional surface area of said microfluidic channel in the flow direction.
However, Spaid teaches that one may determine a volume flow rate as a function of a cross-sectional surface area of a microfluidic channel in a flow direction (see col. 17, lines 38-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riviere’s electrochemical amperometry measurement system to determine volume flow rate as a function of a cross-sectional surface area of the microfluidic channel in the flow direction because further important fluid parameters may be determined when flow rate is known, such as viscosity, such as suggested in Spaid col. 17, lines 54-67 and continuing in col. 18, lines 1-5. Accordingly, such a construction would be useful for further improving the sensing parameters of Rivier’s device by allowing for additional fluid parameters to be determined for the flow moving with its microfluidic channel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 11, and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 4: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the first electrode potential allows the oxidation of water H2O to dioxygen O2 and the second electrode potential allows the reduction of the dioxygen O2 dissolved in the produced water H2O to water H2O, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 2.
As to claim 5: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the first electrode potential allows the reduction of water H2O to dihydrogen H2 and the second electrode potential allows the reduction of water H2O to dihydrogen H2, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 2.
As to claim 6: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the first electrode potential allows the reduction of dioxygen O2 dissolved in water H2O to water H2O and the second electrode potential allows the reduction of dioxygen O2 dissolved in water H2O to water H2O, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 2.
As to claim 11: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein said at least one electrochemical cell comprises two second working electrodes respectively separated form the first working electrode by a first inter-electrode distance and by a second inter-electrode distance with the first inter-electrode distance being different from the second inter-electrode distance, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
As to claim 16: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the multi-layer structure further comprises an upper layer and at least one intermediate layer located between the lower layer and the upper layer, with the microfluidic electrochemical device being formed within the thickness of the at least one intermediate layer, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1, 13, and 15.
As to claims 17 and 18: Each of said claims depends directly from claim 16 and accordingly each is also indicated objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims at least by virtue of their respective dependencies upon a claim which itself has been objected to for reasons noted previously above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights