CTNF 18/150,003 CTNF 95659 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/04/2023, 07/21/2023, 08/25/2025, 11/19/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the FAOM. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 2-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2-11 line 1 recite “Claim” and should be amended to “ c laim” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-11 are directed to an abstract idea and a mental process without significantly more. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea and a mental process of “determining a combined impedance and a phase” and “identifying the object”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because using the correlation in the “determining” and “identifying” steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they simply recite naturally occurring correlations but do not claim how to actually perform the “determining” and “identifying” processes. The claims 2-11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these are well-understood, routine, conventional activities for sample analyzes. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-11 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. Claim 1 recites “determining a combined impedance and a phase by using the measured AC characteristic and identifying the object by using the determined combined impedance and the phase ”. Attempts to claim a process without setting forth necessary steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness (see MPEP 2173.05(q)). In this case, without positively reciting “ comparing the combined impedance and the phase of the object with a combined impedance and a phase of a reference sample” in the identifying step, it is unclear how the method performs the identification step based solely on combined impedance and the phase of the object (see Spec., para [0056]-[0057]). Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater , 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus , 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim. Claims 2-11 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Di Berardino et al (US20150253302A1 published 09/10/2015; hereinafter Berardino) . Regarding claim 1 , Berardino teaches an object identification method comprising: feeding an object dispersed in a solvent to a micro-channel (raw milk with somatic cells is fed into a microchannel 4 – Fig. 6); applying an AC (Alternating Current) voltage to a measurement electrode provided at the micro-channel (electrodes 6 and 7 for generating an electrical AC field 8 – paragraph 50 and Fig. 6) and measuring an AC characteristic of the object when the object passes through the micro-channel (the impedance or the change of the impedance is measured – paragraph 50); and determining a combined impedance and a phase (analyzing the impedance values depending on the amplitude values and the phase angle values – paragraph 12) by using the measured AC characteristic and identifying the object by using the determined combined impedance and the phase (an appropriate trigger parameter, which is normally composed of one of the measured impedance components (real or imaginary parts, amplitude and phase angle) and its value (=trigger level) – paragraph 22). Regarding claim 2 , Berardino teaches the object identification method according to Claim 1, wherein parameters corresponding to a resistive component (the normal size of somatic cells (6-18 µm) – paragraph 20), a ζ-potential (membrane potential – paragraph 47), and a dielectric constant (cellular parameters, such as membrane capacitance – paragraph 24), respectively, of the object are determined by using the combined impedance and the phase (an appropriate trigger parameter, which is normally composed of one of the measured impedance components (real or imaginary parts, amplitude and phase angle) and its value (=trigger level) – paragraph 22), and the object is identified by using the determined parameters corresponding to the resistive component, the ζ-potential, and the dielectric constant (This allows for a selective distinction between milk particles or cells and the noise signals arising from a highly sensitive detection system – paragraph 22). Regarding claim 4 , Berardino teaches the object identification method according to Claim 2, wherein the parameter corresponding to the resistive component is a parameter corresponding to a size of the object (the normal size of somatic cells (6-18 µm) – paragraph 20), the parameter corresponding to the ζ-potential is a parameter corresponding to a surface potential of the object (membrane potential – paragraph 47), and the parameter corresponding to the dielectric constant is a parameter corresponding to at least one of a structure and a material of the object (cellular parameters, such as membrane capacitance – paragraph 24). Regarding claim 5 , Berardino teaches the object identification method according to Claim 1, wherein an in-phase component (phase angle – paragraph 22) and a phase component are extracted (its value (trigger level) – paragraph 22), the in-phase component being a component corresponding to the AC characteristic (impedance components – paragraph 22), and the phase component being a component deviated from the in-phase component (the measured impedance components (real or imaginary parts, amplitude and phase angle) and its value (=trigger level) – paragraph 22); a combined impedance and a phase are determined by using the extracted in-phase component and the phase component (the amplitude (A, absolute value of real and imaginary part) alone or in combination with the phase angle (.phi., resulting from real and imaginary part) can also be used as trigger parameters – paragraph 23); and the object is identified by using a temporal change of the combined impedance and a temporal change of the phase (Only signals meeting the trigger parameters are recorded and are thus available for detailed analysis – paragraph 22). Regarding claim 6 , Berardino teaches the object identification method according to Claim 5, wherein parameters corresponding to a resistive component and a ζ-potential of the object are determined by using a waveform indicating the temporal change of the combined impedance (The impedance signal of raw milk as well as the impedance change caused by every single somatic cell and lipid vesicle crossing the established AC field is measured – paragraph 50). Regarding claim 7 , Berardino teaches the object identification method according to Claim 1, wherein a reference sample for calibration is further dispersed in the solvent (an internal calibration of the impedance value and can be done as soon as raw milk flows through the micro fluidic chip – paragraph 45), the solvent, in which the object and the reference sample are dispersed, is fed to the micro-channel (raw milk is fed into the microchannel 4 – Fig. 6), an AC characteristic of the object when the object passes through the micro-channel is measured (the particles are counted and the impedance of the particles is measured – paragraph 22), an AC characteristic of the reference sample when the reference sample passes through the micro-channel is measured (an internal calibration of the impedance value and can be done as soon as raw milk flows through the micro fluidic chip – paragraph 45), and the object is identified based on the combined impedance and the phase determined by using the AC characteristic of the object (This way the impedance values of the cells behave the same and identical discrimination patterns can be used for different milk samples – paragraph 21) and the combined impedance and the phase determined by using the AC characteristic of the reference sample (the impedance of the milk is determined and the chip calibrated such that the subsequent analysis of the cells occurs under standardized conditions – paragraph 21). Regarding claim 8 , Berardino teaches the object identification method according to Claim 1, wherein a frequency of an AC voltage applied to the measurement electrode is between 1 kHz and 100 MHz (a smaller frequency range, i.e. from 10 to 20 MHz – paragraph 48). Regarding claim 9 , Berardino teaches the object identification method according to Claim 1, wherein the solvent is an ionic liquid or an aqueous solution (raw milk – Fig. 6). Regarding claim 10 , Berardino teaches the object identification method according to Claim 1, wherein the object is at least one organism selected from the group consisting of a virus, a bacterium (somatic/bacterial cell – paragraph 49), and a microorganism (somatic/bacterial cell – paragraph 49). Regarding claim 11 , Berardino teaches the object identification method according to Claim 1, wherein the micro-channel has such a width that only one object can pass therethrough at a time (only one particle 9 can pass at a time – Fig. 6) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berardino . Regarding claim 3 , Berardino teaches the object identification method according to Claim 2, wherein the object is identified by mapping the parameters corresponding to the resistive component (the normal size of somatic cells (6-18 µm) – paragraph 20), the ζ-potential (membrane potential – paragraph 47), and the dielectric constant (cellular parameters, such as membrane capacitance – paragraph 24). Although Berardino does not teach a three-dimensional coordinate system in which its axes represent the resistive component, the ζ-potential, and the dielectric constant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, through routine optimization, to graph the parameters in a three-dimensional coordinate system to make the data easier and faster to read. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINGCHEN SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm. 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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. /T.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1796 /CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/150,003 Page 2 Art Unit: 1796 Application/Control Number: 18/150,003 Page 3 Art Unit: 1796 Application/Control Number: 18/150,003 Page 4 Art Unit: 1796 Application/Control Number: 18/150,003 Page 5 Art Unit: 1796 Application/Control Number: 18/150,003 Page 6 Art Unit: 1796 Application/Control Number: 18/150,003 Page 7 Art Unit: 1796 Application/Control Number: 18/150,003 Page 8 Art Unit: 1796 Application/Control Number: 18/150,003 Page 9 Art Unit: 1796 Application/Control Number: 18/150,003 Page 10 Art Unit: 1796