Patent Application 18224878 - AUTO-CALIBRATION PH SENSOR - Rejection
Patent Application 18224878 - AUTO-CALIBRATION PH SENSOR
Title: AUTO-CALIBRATION PH SENSOR
Application Information
- Invention Title: AUTO-CALIBRATION PH SENSOR
- Application Number: 18224878
- Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2023-07-21T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2023-07-21T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 205
- National Sub-Class: 787500
- Examiner Employee Number: 73022
- Art Unit: 1795
- Tech Center: 1700
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
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 10 is objected to because of the following informality: in line 1 “a ion-selective” should be – an ion-selective --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. US 2003/0150726 A1 (hereafter “West”) in view of Heiner Jäckle US 4,686,011 (hereafter “Jäckle”) and Petr Vanẏsek, “The Glass Electrode”, The Electrochemical Society Interface • Summer 2004 (hereafter “Vanẏsek”).
Addressing claim 1, West discloses a pH sensor (see the title and Abstract) comprising:
pH sensing instrumentation (Figure 2) comprising:
a pH fluid (12 in Figures 1 and 2);
a pH fluid chamber (3 in Figure 1, 19 in Figure 2 );
a pH sensing chamber (9 in Figures 1 and 2) filled with the pH fluid (Figures 1 and 2) and fluidly coupled to the pH fluid chamber (Figures 1 and 2); and
a measuring electrode (11 in Figures 1 and 2) extending through the pH fluid chamber (Figures 1 and 2) and comprising a
tip that resides in the pH sensing chamber (Figures 1 and 2);
reference sensing instrumentation (the portion of the pH sensing instrumentation shown in Figure 1 that surrounds the pH fluid chamber and part of the pH sensing chamber) comprising:
a reference fluid (14 in Figure 1); a reference chamber (5) filled with the reference fluid (Figure 1);
a reference electrode (15) immersed in the reference fluid (Figure 1);
an electrochemical junction (1) configured to fluidly connect the reference fluid
with a test sample placed in contact with the pH sensing chamber (this feature may be inferred from Figure 1 with the first sentence of
paragraph [0003]); and
a pH determination unit electrically connected to the measuring electrode of the
pH sensing instrumentation and the reference electrode of the reference sensing instrumentation (although not shown or specifically mentioned, such a pH determination unit is clearly implied by the following in paragraph [0076], “Measurements were made by placing the electrodes in a pH 7.00 buffer and recording the potential after 5 minutes with a pH meter. [italicizing by the Examiner”).
West, though, does not disclose as required by claim 1,
monitoring instrumentation comprising:
a monitoring fluid;
a monitoring fluid chamber;
a monitoring sensing chamber filled with the monitoring fluid and
fluidly coupled to the monitoring fluid chamber, wherein the monitoring fluid chamber and the monitoring sensing chamber are immersed in the reference fluid; and
a monitoring electrode extending through the monitoring fluid
chamber and comprising a tip that resides in the monitoring sensing chamber; . . . .
So, West also does not disclose having the pH determination unit electrically also be connected to the monitoring electrode of the monitoring instrumentation.
Jäckle discloses a pH sensor (see the Figure 1 and col. 2:20-49) comprising:
pH sensing instrumentation (15 in Figure 1 and col. 4:59-66)1;
reference sensing instrumentation (whatever is contained in bore 13 in Figure 1; see col. 4:55-66. Also note vessel 30 and its contents in the Figure 2 and Figure 3 embodiments) comprising:
a reference fluid (16 in Figure 1 and col. 4:59-66; 16’ in Figure 2 and
col. 44-51; and 16’’ in Figure 3 and col. 7:7-15); a reference chamber (13 in Figure 1; 30 in Figure 2; and 30 in Figure 3) filled with the reference fluid
(Figures 1-3);
a reference electrode (19 in Figure 1 and col. 4:66; 19’ in Figure 2 and
col. 6:47; and 31 and its contents in Figure 3) immersed in the reference fluid (Figures 1-3, col. 4:66 – col.5:1);
monitoring instrumentation (21 in Figure 1; 29’ in Figure 2; and 29’ in Figure 3. Note that these electrodes are disclosed to be monitor electrodes. See the Abstract, col. 2:50 – col. 3:6, col. 5:14-27, col. 6:58-65, col. 7:27-31, and claim 1(“. . . . means for monitoring changes in the reference system leading to potential drifts comprising an additional monitor electrode for measuring the pX value of the first bridge electrolyte and wherein the first bridge electrolyte has the same pX value as the reference electrolyte.“) comprising:
a monitoring fluid2 (one of ordinary skill in the electrochemical sensor art would understand that the monitoring instrumentation in Jäckle (21 in Figure 1; 29’ in Figure 2; and 29’ in Figure 3) is a conventional glass pH electrode. See Figures 1-3 , col. 5:14-21, and col. 6:58-65. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have it comprise a monitoring fluid, such as HCl, as this is typical for conventional glass pH electrodes. See, for example, Vanẏsek Figure 1. Also note on Vanẏsek page 19, right column, “But the pH inside the bulb is constant, because
the internal solution is sealed. “);
a monitoring fluid chamber (not labeled, but clearly shown in Jäckle. See annotated Jäckle Figures 1-3 below.);
a monitoring sensing chamber (not labeled, but clearly shown in Jäckle. See annotated Jäckle Figures 1-3 below. ) filled with the monitoring fluid (this feature may be inferred from Vanẏsek
Figures 1 and 2) and
fluidly coupled to the monitoring fluid chamber (see annotated Jäckle Figures 1-3 below), wherein the monitoring fluid chamber and the monitoring sensing chamber are immersed in the reference fluid (see annotated Jäckle Figures 1-3 below); and
a monitoring electrode extending through the monitoring fluid
chamber (not labeled, but clearly shown in Jäckle. See annotated Jäckle Figures 1-3 below.) and comprising a tip that resides in the monitoring sensing chamber (this feature may be inferred from Vanẏsek Figures 1 and 2. Also, consider West Figures 1 and 2.) ;
an electrochemical junction (24 in Jäckle Figure 1 and 24’ in Jäckle Figures 2
and 3; col. 6:12-19 and col. 6:55-57) configured to fluidly connect the reference fluid with a test sample placed in contact with the pH sensing chamber (see again Jäckle Figures 1-3, col. 6:12-19, and col. 6:55-57); and
a pH determination unit electrically connected to the measuring electrode of the
pH sensing instrumentation, the reference electrode of the reference sensing instrumentation, and the monitoring electrode of the monitoring instrumentation (one of ordinary skill in the electrochemical sensor art would understand the following symbol in Jäckle Figures 2 and 3 to represent such a pH determination unit,
PNG
media_image2.png
102
100
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, especially in light of Jäckle claim 1 preamble).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide monitoring instrumentation as taught by Jäckle in view of Vanẏsek in the pH sensor of West because as taught by Jäckle,
PNG
media_image3.png
300
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See Jäckle, col. 2:20-35.
.
PNG
media_image4.png
906
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
806
898
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Addressing claim 2, for the additional limitation of this claim see West Figure 2 noting therein “Reference Half-Cell Wire (15)”.
Addressing claim 3, for the additional limitation of this claim see West paragraph [0056], which discloses that the reference electrode may at least be an Ag/AgCl electrode or a Hg/Hg2Cl2 electrode.
Addressing claim 4, for the additional limitation of this claim see West Figures 1 and 2, noting especially in Figure 2 “(19) Inert Glass Stem (Not pH Sensitive)”.
Addressing claim 5, for the additional limitation of this claim see annotated Jäckle in the rejection of underlying claim 1 above, Jäckle col. 5:14-21 and col. 6:58-65, and also Vanẏsek Figure 1.
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West in view of Jäckle and Vanẏsek as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Dunn et asl. US 5,766,432 (hereafter “Dunn”) and Yoshio Horii US 5,004,998 (hereafter “Horii”).
Addressing claim 6, West as modified by Jäckle and Vanẏsek does not disclose, as required by claim 6,
an additional monitoring fluid;
an additional monitoring fluid chamber;
an additional monitoring sensing chamber filled with the additional monitoring fluid and fluidly
coupled to the additional monitoring fluid chamber, wherein the additional monitoring fluid chamber and the additional monitoring sensing chamber are immersed in the reference fluid; and
an additional monitoring electrode extending through the additional monitoring fluid chamber and
comprising a tip that resides in the additional monitoring sensing chamber,
wherein the pH determination unit is electrically connected to the additional monitoring electrode.
Dunn discloses a pH-measuring method and device for monitoring and then correcting for electrode drift. The device includes a pH-measuring electrode and more than one reference electrode. See the Dunn Abstract.
As Dunn provides at least one additional reference electrode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide in the pH sensor of West in view of Jäckle and Vanẏsek an additional monitoring fluid as claimed; an additional monitoring fluid chamber as claimed; an additional monitoring sensing chamber as claimed; and an additional monitoring electrode as claimed, with the pH determination unit being electrically connected to the additional monitoring electrode, because it would be easy to implement as it would just be duplication of parts, and, more importantly, by then also using a similar measurement procedure and calculations disclosed by Dunn as described in the Dunn Abstract and col. 1:50 – col. 2:22 an electrode undergoing significant drift may be identified.
Addressing claim 7, for the additional limitation of this claim see West Figure 2 noting therein “Reference Half-Cell Wire (15)”.
Addressing claim 9, West as modified by Jäckle and Vanẏsek does not disclose, as required by claim 9,
a first additional monitoring fluid and a second additional monitoring fluid;
a first additional monitoring fluid chamber and a second additional monitoring fluid chamber;
a first additional monitoring sensing chamber filled with the first additional monitoring fluid and
fluidly coupled to the first additional monitoring fluid chamber;
a second additional monitoring sensing chamber filled with the second additional monitoring fluid
and fluidly coupled to the second additional monitoring fluid chamber;
a first additional monitoring electrode extending through the first additional monitoring fluid
chamber and comprising a tip that resides in the first additional monitoring sensing
chamber; and
a second additional monitoring electrode extending through the second additional monitoring fluid
chamber and comprising a tip that resides in the second additional monitoring sensing chamber,
wherein the pH determination unit is electrically connected to the first additional monitoring
electrode and the second additional monitoring electrode.
Dunn discloses a pH-measuring method and device for monitoring and then correcting for electrode drift. The device includes a pH-measuring electrode and more than one reference electrode. See the Dunn Abstract and Figure 3, which shows five (52a-e; col. 6:12-17).
As Dunn provides at least two additional reference electrodes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide in the pH sensor of West in view of Jäckle and Vanẏsek a first additional monitoring fluid and second additional monitoring fluid as claimed; a first additional monitoring fluid chamber and a second additional monitoring fluid chamber as claimed; a second additional monitoring sensing chamber as claimed; and a first additional monitoring electrode as claimed, a second additional monitoring electrode as claimed, with the pH determination unit being electrically connected to the first additional monitoring electrode and the second additional monitoring electrode, because it would be easy to implement as it would just be duplication of parts, and, more importantly, by then also using a similar measurement procedure and calculations disclosed by Dunn as described in the Dunn Abstract and col. 1:50 – col. 2:22 an electrode undergoing significant drift may be identified.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10,3 and 11 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.
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
a) In claim 8 the combination of limitations requires “. . . ., wherein the monitoring fluid comprises a first pH and the additional monitoring fluid comprises a second pH different from the first pH. [underlining by the Examiner]”
In contrast, in the pH sensor of West as modified by Jäckle, Vanẏsek, and Dunn, the pH of monitoring fluid comprises and the pH of the additional monitoring fluid would be expected to be equal, as the additional monitoring fluid is a duplicate of the monitoring fluid.
b) In claim 10 the combination of limitations requires “. . . ., wherein the pH sensor further comprises a ion-selective field effect transistor immersed in the reference fluid. [underlining by the Examiner]”
While it perhaps would have been obvious to provide an ion-selective field effect transistor (specially configured to measure another ion than hydrogen ions) immersed in the test sample, there is no suggestion in the prior art and no readily apparently benefit to providing in the pH sensor of West as modified by Jäckle, and Vanẏsek an ion-selective field effect transistor immersed in the reference fluid.
c) In claim 11 the combination of limitations requires “wherein the pH determination unit is configured to: measure a first voltage between the measuring electrode and the reference electrode; measure a second voltage between the reference electrode and the monitoring electrode; calculate a third voltage based on at least the first voltage and the second voltage; and convert the third voltage to a pH signal to determine the pH of the test sample. [underlining by the Examiner]”
In contrast, while one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in the pH sensor of West as modified by Jäckle and Vanẏsek that the pH determination unit is configured to: measure a first voltage between the measuring electrode and the reference electrode (see West paragraphs [0003] and [0076]. Also see Jäckle Figures 2 and 3.); and to measure a second voltage between the reference electrode and the monitoring electrode (see Jäckle Figures 2 and 3, noting therein ← Δ →, col. 6:20-32, and claim 1 (“. . . . the improvement comprising monitoring changes in a reference system leading to potential drifts by the steps of detecting the occurrence of a potential difference resulting from a difference in pX value between the reference electrolyte and the bridge electrolyte and producing a fault signal when such difference occurs.”), there is no suggestion of combining the second voltage with the first voltage to determine the pH of the test sample; the second voltage is used independently to determine whether there is a fault with refence system. See in Jäckle the Abstract, col. 2:20-35, col. 4:20-54, and claim 1.
d) In independent claim 12 the combination of limitations requires the steps of “contacting the pH sensing chamber and the electrochemical junction with the test sample; measuring a first voltage between the measuring electrode and the reference electrode; measuring a second voltage between the reference electrode and the monitoring electrode; calculating a third voltage based on at least the first voltage and the second voltage; and converting the third voltage to a pH signal to determine the pH of the test sample. [underlining by the Examiner]”
In contrast, while West as modified by Jäckle and Vanẏsek does disclose pH sensing instrumentation as required by the method of this claim (see the rejection of claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 above), and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in the pH sensor of West as modified by Jäckle and Vanẏsek that the pH determination unit is configured to: measure a first voltage between the measuring electrode and the reference electrode (see West paragraphs [0003] and [0076]. Also see Jäckle Figures 2 and 3.); and to measure a second voltage between the reference electrode and the monitoring electrode (see Jäckle Figures 2 and 3, noting therein ← Δ →, col. 6:20-32, and claim 1 (“. . . . the improvement comprising monitoring changes in a reference system leading to potential drifts by the steps of detecting the occurrence of a potential difference resulting from a difference in pX value between the reference electrolyte and the bridge electrolyte and producing a fault signal when such difference occurs.”), there is no suggestion of combining the second voltage with the first voltage to determine the pH of the test sample; the second voltage is used independently to determine whether there is a fault with refence system. See in Jäckle the Abstract, col. 2:20-35, col. 4:20-54, and claim 1.
e) claims 13-20 depend directly o indirectly from allowable claim 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM 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, Luan 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795 May 9, 2025
1 Note that no detail in Jäckle about pH sensing instrumentation (pH measuring electrode) is provided; however, presumably it could be, if not actually is, a glass pH electrode and so would likely have a pH fluid; a pH fluid chamber; a pH sensing chamber filled with the pH fluid and fluidly coupled to the pH fluid chamber, and a measuring electrode extending through the pH fluid chamber and comprising a tip that resides in the pH sensing chamber, similarly as in West as is typical for tubular glass pH electrodes. In any event the Examiner is not relying upon Jäckle for its pH sensing instrumentation.
2 Note that Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2024/0027388 A1 (“Applicant’s PG-PUB”) states, in paragraph [0026], “The additional monitoring fluid chamber 64 and additional monitoring sensing chamber 66 may be fluidly coupled and filled with the additional monitoring fluid 63, which may be a solution of known pH. [italicizing by the Examiner]”
The specification can be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of a term in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 1999)("[W]ords in patent claims are given their ordinary meaning in the usage of the field of the invention, unless the text of the patent makes clear that a word was used with a special meaning."); Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("Where there are several common meanings for a claim term, the patent disclosure serves to point away from the improper meanings and toward the proper meanings."). "The Patent and Trademark Office (‘PTO’) determines the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’ " Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also MPEP § 2111.01. Further, those portions of the specification which provide support for the reference claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in the application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the reference patent or application (as distinguished from an obvious variation of the subject matter disclosed in the reference patent or application). In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-42, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970). The court in Vogel recognized "that it is most difficult, if not meaningless, to try to say what is or is not an obvious variation of a claim," but that one can judge whether or not the invention claimed in an application is an obvious variation of an embodiment disclosed in the patent or application which provides support for the claim. According to the court, one must first "determine how much of the patent disclosure pertains to the invention claimed in the patent" because only "[t]his portion of the specification supports the patent claims and may be considered." The court pointed out that "this use of the disclosure is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 103, since only the disclosure of the invention claimed in the patent may be examined." In AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court explained that it is also proper to look at the disclosed utility in the reference disclosure to determine the overall question of obviousness in a nonstatutory double patenting context. See Sun Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 611 F.3d 1381, 95 USPQ2d 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 86 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F3d 1373, 1385-86, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 804 II.B.2(a).
3 For claim 10 also see Claim Objections above.
(Ad) Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months
✓
Custom AI strategy tailored to your specific industry needs
✓
Step-by-step implementation with measurable ROI
✓
5-minute setup that requires zero technical skills
Trusted by 1,000+ companies worldwide
