DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/14/2025 and 9/16/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 12 is 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.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is directed toward a method but does not set forth any steps to perform the method. See 2173.05(q). The body of method claim 12 is identical to the body of the apparatus of claim 1 and is directed to structural components and their configurations, without reciting any particular method steps. The limitations of claim 12 are directed toward a structure with components which are “configured” to perform functions, e.g. “a measurement unit configured to measure…” and “the controller configured to acquire…”, but does not definitively recite specific method steps. For the purpose of examination, the claim is rejected in view of an apparatus configured to achieve the limitations as claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 4001274 (Burkhard) in view of US 2021/0399703 (Kyakuno).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Burkhard teaches a measurement apparatus (measurement apparatus of Fig. 1) comprising:
a measurement unit configured to measure an impedance of an electrode to be measured having first and second terminals (evaluation unit 8 measures impedance of electrode 3 which has first and second terminals; see Fig. 1; see [0042] of the machine translation); and
wherein the measurement unit comprises:
an operational amplifier having first and second input terminals and an output terminal (operational amplifier 2 comprising inverting input “-”, non-inverting input “+”, and output terminal; see Fig. 1); and
a feedback resistor having a third terminal connected to the output terminal, and a fourth terminal connected to the first input terminal (feedback resistor Rs has a terminal connected to the output terminal of amplifier 2 and a terminal connected to the inverting input of the amplifier; see Fig. 1), and
acquire, in a state of the first input terminal connected to the first terminal, a measurement value of the impedance of the electrode to be measured, based on a voltage applied to the second terminal, a potential of the output terminal, and a resistance value of the feedback resistor (the electrode 3 is connected to the inverting input of the amplifier 2 and determines an impedance RG based on the output voltage UA, a generator voltage UG applied to the second terminal via capacitor CK, and the feedback resistor RS; see Fig. 1; see [0042]).
Kyakuno teaches a controller (a CPU which monitors the output voltage of the amplifier; see [0052[), a feedback resistor that is a variable resistor (feedback resistor 101, 102 which is a variable resistor by means of switches S1-4; see Fig. 1).
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 features of Kyakuno into Burkhard in order to gain the advantage of a controller for controlling operation of the sensor, collecting output data and performing calculations, and a variable feedback resistor which may change the feedback resistance such that the amplifier circuit has a large dynamic range.
Regarding claim 9, Burkhard fails to teach wherein the measurement unit comprises, as the feedback resistor, a resistor whose resistance value is switchable among multiple ranges, however, the limitations as claimed are rejected over Fig. 1 of Kyakuno for similar reasons as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 4001274 (Burkhard) in view of US 2021/0399703 (Kyakuno), and in further view of US 5,268,852 (Forsythe).
Regarding claims 4-5, Burkhard fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to: acquire a temperature of the electrode to be measured; and correct, based on the acquired temperature, the measurement value of the impedance of the electrode to be measured wherein the controller is configured to: acquire a temperature correction function that indicates a relationship between temperature and impedance according to a type of the electrode to be measured; and correct, using the temperature correction function, the measurement value of the impedance of the electrode to be measured.
Forsythe teaches the controller is configured to: acquire a temperature of the electrode to be measured; and correct, based on the acquired temperature, the measurement value of the impedance of the electrode to be measured wherein the controller is configured to: acquire a temperature correction function that indicates a relationship between temperature and impedance according to a type of the electrode to be measured; and correct, using the temperature correction function, the measurement value of the impedance of the electrode to be measured (a temperature probe 17 measures a temperature of a an electrode 14 and corrects the impedance measurement according to a function; see Fig. 1; see col. 4, line 25 – 64).
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 features of Forsythe into Burkhard in order to gain the advantage of correcting for fluctuations in impedance due to changes in temperature which affect the accuracy of the pH measurement.
Regarding claims 10-11, Burkhard fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to: acquire a degree of deterioration of the electrode to be measured, based on the measurement value of the impedance of the electrode to be measured; and output the acquired degree of deterioration, wherein the controller is configured to: predict timing of replacing the electrode to be measured, based on the degree of deterioration acquired at multiple points in time; and output the predicted timing of replacing the electrode to be measured.
Forsythe teaches wherein the controller is configured to: acquire a degree of deterioration of the electrode to be measured, based on the measurement value of the impedance of the electrode to be measured; and output the acquired degree of deterioration, wherein the controller is configured to: predict timing of replacing the electrode to be measured, based on the degree of deterioration acquired at multiple points in time; and output the predicted timing of replacing the electrode to be measured (“The fault signal of FIG. 3, which indicates an impedance variation, can be used to drive a display or to operate a relay to provide an alarm. The fault signal can be set to be provided as a prediction of failure, to give an alarm, or indicate when an electrode should be replaced. The signal can be to indicate when the electrode impedance exceeds a user selected value indicating an old or coated electrode, or when the impedance falls below a selected value indicating a cracked electrode.” An impedance variation indicates an old or coated electrode, and would reasonably be interpreted as equivalent to a “degree of deterioration” in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation. It would be common sense for one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor the impedance over multiple points in time to monitor the state of the electrode. See col. 6, lines 10-19).
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 features of Forsythe into Burkhard in order to gain the advantage of monitoring the impedance of the electrodes over time as changes in impedance may affect the accuracy of pH measurements, and to monitor impedance variation due to an old or coated electrode to predict failure or indicate when an electrode should be replaced.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 4001274 (Burkhard) in view of US 2021/0399703 (Kyakuno), and in further view of US 5,970,428 (Brennan).
Regarding claim 6, Burkhard teaches a glass electrode and reference electrode (glass measuring electrode 3 and reference electrode 4; see Fig. 1; see [0039]). Burkhard fails to teach comprising a liquid ground circuit configured to apply a voltage to a glass electrode and a reference electrode via a measurement solution, wherein the measurement unit comprises first and second measurement units, in a state of the liquid ground circuit applying the voltage, the first measurement unit being configured to measure an impedance of the glass electrode as the electrode to be measured, and the second measurement unit being configured to measure an impedance of the reference electrode as the electrode to be measured.
Brennan teaches comprising a liquid ground circuit configured to apply a voltage to a glass electrode and a reference electrode via a measurement solution (a solution ground electrode 12 which applies a voltage to glass electrode 14 and reference electrode 16 via diagnostic signal source 20 through solution 18; see Fig. 1; see Col. 4, lines 33-42).
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 features of Forsythe into Burkhard in order to gain the advantage of measuring the pH by applying a voltage via a solution ground electrode and measuring a voltage between a reference electrode and pH electrode without errors arising due to ground loops.
While the prior art of record doesn’t explicitly wherein the measurement unit comprises first and second measurement units, in a state of the liquid ground circuit applying the voltage, the first measurement unit being configured to measure an impedance of the glass electrode as the electrode to be measured, and the second measurement unit being configured to measure an impedance of the reference electrode as the electrode to be measured, it would be an obvious matter of duplication of parts for one of ordinary skill in the art to include one circuit as disclosed in claim 1 for measuring the impedance of the reference electrode and a second circuit as disclosed in claim 1 for measuring the impedance of the pH electrode to detect for damage or changes in impedance of the electrodes. See col. 5, lines 41- col. 6, line 5.
Regarding claim 7, Burkhard teaches wherein the controller is configured to acquire a pH of the measurement solution based on a potential difference between the glass electrode and the reference electrode immersed in the measurement solution, in a state of the liquid ground circuit not applying the voltage (Burkhard measures a pH without applying a voltage through a ground circuit, and the limitations as claimed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combination of Burkhard, , Kyakuno, and Brennan).
Regarding claim 8, Burkhard fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to correct, based on a correlation between variation in a measurement value of the impedance of the glass electrode and variation in a measurement value of the pH of the measurement solution, the pH of the measurement solution acquired based on the potential difference between the glass electrode and the reference electrode immersed in the measurement solution, however, the limitations as claimed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the pH measurement is dependent on electrode impedance and fluctuations of the electrode impedance will lead to an error of a pH measurement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record fails to teach further comprising: a first switch configured to switch a terminal connected to the first input terminal and the fourth terminal, between a state of connecting to the first terminal and a state of not connecting to the first terminal; and a second switch configured to switch a terminal connected to the second input terminal, between a state of connecting to an electromotive force terminal that outputs a potential of the electrode to be measured immersed in a measurement solution that is a sample and a state of being not connected to the electromotive force terminal, wherein the controller is configured to acquire the measurement value of the impedance of the electrode to be measured, in a state of the first switch connecting the first input terminal and the fourth terminal to the first terminal, and the second switch not connecting the second input terminal to the electromotive force terminal, in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
While it is known in the art to switch between an impedance measurement and a pH measurement, the prior art fails to teach a measurement apparatus with switches configured as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is objected to due to a dependence on objected claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0184251 - Fig. 1C teaches an equivalent circuit as recited in claim 1 for measuring a conductivity of a fluid rather than an impedance of an electrode.
US 2019/0313935 – Figs. 2A and 4 teach an equivalent circuit as recited in claim 1 for measuring an unknown impedance.
US 2020/0340855 – Figs. 2-3 teach an equivalent circuit as recited in claim 1 for measuring an unknown impedance to calibrate a measurement circuit.
US 2019/0113472 – Fig. 1 and 3-4 teach an equivalent circuit as recited in claim 1 for measuring an unknown impedance of blood-sugar level meter.
US 2021/0063377 – Fig. 1 teaches an equivalent sensor as disclosed in claim 1 for a sensor measuring a moisture content in soil.
US 2008/0042665 further teaches in [0020]-[0021] how electrode impedance deteriorates over time, affects integrity and accuracy of the sensor, and predict replacement of electrodes.
See PTO-892 which discloses additional references related to the subject matter of claim 1 for pH sensors or other types of sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights