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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-10, 12-16, and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has argued that the combination of Zhu (CN 109856124) in view of Agree et al., (US 2009/0004747) do not meet the limitations of the instant claims. The Examiner agrees with Applicant’s position regarding reference to Agree et al., thus the reference is no longer relied upon. However, the Examiner has not found Applicant’s arguments regarding reference to Zhu to be persuasive, and has combined the teachings of Zhu with those of Radmacher et al., (US 2010/0124516) who teach a device for measuring chlorine wherein syringaldazine and vanillin azine are utilized as indicators for chlorine. Because reference to Radmacher et al., is newly cited, the Examiner will not argue the merits of its teachings here, but will instead rely on the rejection detailed below.
With respect to reference to Zhu, Applicant has argued that the reference is directed to detection of hydrogen peroxide, and does not require first, second, and third solutions to produce the claimed test paper. The Examiner contends that the detection of hydrogen peroxide is based on the indicator taught by reference to Zhu, and notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the process of making a test paper as taught by Zhu can be utilized with a different indicator aimed at detecting any analyte specific for the indicator. Given this view, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to utilize an indicator specific for chlorine when forming a test paper for detecting chlorine. The Examiner also notes that reference to Zhu is not cited for teaching the claimed indicator as the indicator, and motivation to combine is taught by reference to Radmacher et al., as detailed below. With respect to the change in sequence of adding ingredients, the Examiner notes that the MPEP explicitly states that the selection of any order of performing process steps, and the selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious absent any or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C). Applicant had not provided any new or unexpected results with respect to the order in which the steps of independent claim 8 are performed, or the order in which the solutions are mixed. As such, the Examiner has not found Applicant’s arguments against reference to Zhu to be persuasive. Therefore, in light of the teachings of the prior art, and the arguments provided here, the Examiner contends that the limitations of the instant claims are taught by the references cited below, and are not in condition for allowance.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 109856124) in view of Radmacher et al., (US 2010/0124516).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu teaches a method for making a dry chemical test paper comprising providing a buffer and a surfactant in a first solution (paragraph 0043), providing anhydrous ethanol and tetramethyl benzidine in a second solution (paragraph 0044), providing a filter paper (carrier, paragraph 0053), immersing the test paper in the first solution and the second solution in sequence (paragraph 0047), and removing the filter paper from the first and second solutions (paragraph 0075). Zhu does not explicitly teach first, second, and third solutions, however, the Examiner is reading the claimed solutions as a change in sequence of adding ingredients which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Reference to Zhu teaches a dry chemical test paper wherein the paper is immersed in two solutions comprising ingredients identical to that of the instant claims. As such, the Examiner contends that the number of solutions utilized to form the dry chemical test paper is nothing more than the selection of a different order of mixing ingredients. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Zhu wherein the dry chemical test paper is made with three solutions as the selection of any order of mixing ingredients requires only ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, Zhu does not explicitly teach a buffer ranging from 0.01 to 10 grams, and a surfactant ranging from 0.05 to 6 grams. The Examiner is reading these limitations as optimization which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP states that differences in concentration will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art absent evidence showing the concentration to be critical. To date, Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the claimed concentration ranges are critical, thus the Examiner deems the concentration ranges to be routine optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Zhu to utilize a buffer ranging from 0.01 to 10 grams and a surfactant at 0.05 to 6 grams as optimization requires only routine skill in the art. Zhu does not teach syringaldazine or vanillin azine as the color developer.
Radmacher et al., teach an apparatus for determining total chlorine in liquids wherein a test paper is impregnated with Michler’s thioketone syringaldazine, vanillin azine, and potassium iodide (paragraphs 0010, 0014, 0028, 0029) to produce a color change in the presence of chlorine. Radmacher et al., teach that it is advantageous to utilize Michler’s thioketone syringaldazine, vanillin azine, and potassium iodide as a means of providing ensuring high measurement accuracy with a clearly recognizable color change for determining total chlorine content in aqueous liquids (paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Zhu wherein syringaldazine and vanillin azine are utilized as a color developer in order to provide an indicator with high measurement accuracy with a clearly recognizable color change as taught by Radmacher et al.
Regarding claim 9, Zhu teaches sodium citrate, disodium hydrogen phosphate, and sodium dihydrogen phosphates as suitable buffers (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 14, Zhu in view of Radmacher et al., do not explicitly teach the surfactant and buffer dissolved in 800 ml water. The Examiner is reading this limitation as optimization which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP states that differences in concentration will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art absent evidence showing the concentration to be critical. To date, Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the claimed volume is critical, thus the Examiner deems utilizing a volume of 800 ml to be routine optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Zhu wherein the surfactant and buffer are dissolved in 800 ml water as optimization requires only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Zhu teaches the solution comprising a surfactant (paragraphs 0013, 0022, 0027, 0043).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu teaches dissolving a color developer in anhydrous ethanol (paragraphs 0014, 0044) but do not teach the volume recited in the claim. The Examiner is reading this limitation as optimization which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP states that differences in concentration will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art absent evidence showing the concentration to be critical. To date, Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the claimed volume is critical, thus the Examiner deems the volume to be routine optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize 200 ml anhydrous ethanol as optimization requires only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 109856124)in view of Radmacher et al., (US 2010/0124516) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wei et al., (CN 110954530).
Regarding claims 10, 12, and 13, Zhu teaches the solutions comprising a surfactant, but does not teach the surfactants recited in claim 10.
Wei et al. teach a dry chemical test paper wherein the test paper is immersed in solutions comprising a surfactant (paragraph 0045) wherein polyethylene glycol is taught as a suitable surfactant (paragraph 0052). Wei et al., also teach drying the paper at a temperature ranging from 80°C to 100°C. The Examiner is reading this combination as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Reference to Wei et al., teach the selection of a surfactant is not limited and that the taught surfactants are commonly used in the art (paragraph 0052). Additionally, the temperature range taught by Wei et al., is identical to that of the instant claims. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Zhu in view of Radmacher et al., wherein polyethylene glycol is utilized as a surfactant, and the test paper is dried at a temperature ranging from 80°C to 100°C as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 109856124) in view of Radmacher et al., (US 2009/0004747) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ismail et al., (US ,116,729).
Regarding claims 21-23, Zhu in view of Radmacher et al., do not teach a test paper provided on a base layer of polyethylene terephthalate.
Ismail et al., teach a test strip comprising a support strip or handle made of polyethylene terephthalate (column 16 lines 35-37). Ismail et al., also a standardized color chart provided on the test strip bottle (column 3 lines 47-54). With respect to claim 22, the Examiner notes that the color chart would necessarily correspond to a specific concentration of the analyte to be detected. Ismail et al., teach that it is advantageous to utilize polyethylene terephthalate as a means of providing a support for a test paper (column 16 lines 35-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Zhu in view of Radmacher et al., wherein the test paper is formed on a polyethylene terephthalate handle in order to provide a support for the test paper as taught by Ismail et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights