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. Status of the Claims Claims 1-13 are pending and examined herein. Priority The present application, filed 09/25/2023, is acknowledged and the claims examined herein are treated as having an effective filing date of 09/25/2023 . Claim Objections Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1 is objected to because of the following informalities : Claim 1 recites “conjugating an antibody of a specific species was added to the modified electrode” (line 7) . This phrase contains inconsistent grammatical structure. It appears that Applicant intended to recite “conjugating an antibody specific to a species to the modified electrode to form a species specific GPH-GNP/cysteamine/PDITC/SPCE immunosensor.” Appropriate correction is required. Additionally, claim 1 recites “incubating in room temperature” (line 10). This phrase is grammatically incorrect. The phrase should read “incubating at room temperature.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 3 recites “the species in a scorpion are” (line 1). This phrase lacks proper antecedent support for the limitation “different species” recited in claim 1. The phrase should read “wherein, the different species are different scorpion species comprising.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 4 recites “the species in a snake species” (line 1) . This phrase lacks proper antecedent support for the limitation “different species” recited in claim 1. The phrase should read “wherein, the different species are different snake species comprising.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalit ies : Claim 6 recites “conjugating an antibody of the snake species was added to the modified electrode” (line 7). This phrase contains inconsistent grammatical structure. It appears that Applicant intended to recite “conjugating an antibody specific to a snake species to the modified electrode to form a species specific GPH-GNP/cysteamine/PDITC/SPCE immunosensor.” Appropriate correction is required. Additionally, claim 6 recites “incubating in room temperature” (line 10). This phrase is grammatically incorrect. The phrase should read “incubating at room temperature.” Appropriate correction is required. Lastly, the preamble of claim 6 recites “a method of detecting a venom in a snake species simultaneously,” yet the body of the claim only describes detecting venom from a single snake species. The term “simultaneously” therefore appears unnecessary and inconsistent with the claimed subject matter. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 8 recites “the species in a snake species” (line 1). This phrase is redundant and grammatically improper. It appears that Applicant intended to recite “wherein the snake species are.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 0 is objected to because of the following informalit ies : Claim 10 recites “incubating in room temperature” (line 10). This phrase is grammatically incorrect. The phrase should read “incubating at room temperature.” Appropriate correction is required. Additionally, the preamble of claim 10 recites “a method of detecting a venom in a scorpion species simultaneously,” yet the body of the claim only describes detecting venom from a single scorpion species. The term “simultaneously” therefore appears unnecessary and inconsistent with the claimed subject matter. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 12 recites “the species in a scorpion are” (line 1). This phrase is grammatically improper. It appears that Applicant intended to recite “wherein the scorpion species are.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1 - 1 3 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. C laim 1 recites the limitations “ the immobilization ” and “ the antibodies ” in lines 3 and 4 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, neither immobilization nor antibodies have been previously introduced in the claim. Since these elements are in troduced using the definite article “the,” it is unclear what specific immobilization and antibodies are being referenced. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1, which is rejected as indefinite. Accordingly, the dependent claims incorporate the limitations of claim 1 and therefore inherit the indefiniteness. Claim 6 recites the limitations “ the immobilization ” and “ the antibodies ” in lines 3 and 4 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, neither immobilization nor antibodies have been previously introduced in the claim. Since these elements are introduced using the definite article “the,” it is unclear what specific immobilization and antibodies are being referenced. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 7 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 6, which is rejected as indefinite. Accordingly, the dependent claims incorporate the limitations of claim 6 and therefore inherit the indefiniteness. Claim 10 recites the limitations “ the immobilization ” and “ the antibodies ” in lines 3 and 4 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, neither immobilization nor antibodies have been previously introduced in the claim. Since these elements are introduced using the definite article “the,” it is unclear what specific immobilization and antibodies are being referenced. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Appropriate correction is required. Additionally, claim 10 recites “ a method of detecting a venom in a scorpion species simultaneously .” However, the claim further recites “ conjugating an antibody of the snake species was added to the modified electrode to form a species specific GPH-GNP/cysteamine/PDITC/SPCE immunosensor ,” and additionally recites “ detecting a snake specific venom by adding the species specific venom to the species specific GPH-GNP/cysteamine/PDITC/SPCE immunosensor .” Here, the claim is directed to detecting venom in a scorpion species, but the body of the claim requires an antibody of the snake species and recites detecting a snake specific venom. Since these limitations are inconsistent, it is unclear whether the claimed method is directed to detecting scorpion venom or snake venom. As a result, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would be unable to determine, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the claimed invention, particularly with respect to the species of venom and antibody required for the immunosensor. Accordingly, claim 10 is indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 10 will be interpreted to mean that the recitations “conjugating an antibody of the snake species” and “detecting a snake specific venom” are apparent errors. In view of the claim preamble reciting “a method of detecting a venom in a scorpion species simultaneously,” claim 10 will be interpreted as requiring an antibody specific to a scorpion species and detecting a scorpion-specific venom. Hence, claim 10 will be interpreted as requiring conjugating an antibody specific to scorpion species to form a species specific GPH-GNP/cysteamine/PDITC/SPCE immunosensor, and detecting a scorpion specific venom by adding the scorpion venom to the immunosensor and monitoring the reduction peak current variation using square wave voltammetry. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 11 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 10, which is rejected as indefinite. Accordingly, the dependent claims incorporate the limitations of claim 10 and therefore inherit the indefiniteness. 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. 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 FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mars et al. ( Ultrasensitive sensing of Androctonus australis hector scorpion venom toxins in biological fluids using an electrochemical graphene quantum dots/nanobody-based platform . Vol. 190, December 2018) in view of Wang et al. ( Electrochemical Immunosensor with Graphene/Gold Nanoparticles Platform and Ferrocene Derivatives Label . Talanta . Vol. 103, January 2013), Elshafey et al . ( Electrochemical Impedance Immunosensor Based on Gold Nanoparticles–Protein G for the Detection of Cancer Marker Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Human Plasma and Brain Tissue . Biosensors & Bioelectronics . Vol. 50, December 2013), Raja et al. ( In Situ Grown Bimetallic MOF‐Based Composite as Highly Efficient Bifunctional Electrocatalyst for Overall Water Splitting with Ultrastability at High Current Densities . Advanced Energy Materials . Vol. 8, No. 23, August 2018), and FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Faria et al. ( Development of an Impedimetric Immunosensor for Specific Detection of Snake Venom . BioNanoScience . Vol. 8, No. 4, December 2018) . Regarding claims 1 , 2 , and 5 , Mars et al. teaches the importance of detecting venom components in biological fluids for envenomation diagnosis, stating that “rapid and sensitive detection of low levels of scorpion venom toxins in biological fluids is of tremendous importance for decision-taking in cases of envenomation by scorpions stings. In Tunisia, at least 1200 severe envenomation cases by Androctonus australis hector (Aah) scorpion stings were reported annually” (Abstract, page 182). Mars et al. further teaches the use of an electrochemical immunosensor for venom detection , stating that “i n this work, we report on a novel electrochemical immuno-sandwich to detect the Aah50 toxic fraction within the Aah scorpion venom using the bispecific nanobody format specially designed to highly recognize and neutralize the two most toxic molecules in the AahG50 venom fraction (i.e. Aah I and AahII toxins) ” (Abstract, page 182). Additionally, Mars et al. teaches the use of screen-printed carbon electrodes as the electrochemical sensing platform , stating that “ graphene quantum dots (GQDs) constructed on the surface carbon screen-printed electrodes ” (Abstract, page 182) and “screen-printed carbon electrodes were purchased from Orion high technologies consisted of a 4-mm diameter working electrode, a carbon counter electrode and an Ag pseudo-reference electrode” (Materials and methods, paragraph 1, page 183). Lastly, Mars et al. teaches covalent immobilization of antibodies onto graphene-based electrodes, disclosing that “ t he anti-AahG50 polyclonal antibody was covalently immobilized through peptide bond between the carboxylic acid from GQDs and amino group of antibodies using EDC/NHS chemistry. The unreacted acid carboxylic groups were blocked with BSA then AahG50 aliquots at different concentrations were casted on the SPCE/GQDs/anti-AahG50 and incubated for 60min at RT ” (Materials and methods, paragraph 1, page 184). Although Mars et al. teaches the following: electrochemical immunosensors for detecting venom toxins , antibody-based recognition of venom , screen-printed carbon electrode (SPCE) platforms , and covalent immobilization of antibodies onto graphene-based electrode surfaces , incubation of the immunosensor at room temperature – Mars et al. does not teach the following: a graphene-gold nanoparticle composite electrode platform , the use of cysteamine HCL and PDITC chemical linkers for immobilization, washing with DMF and water followed by ethanol during electrode preparation, and square wave voltammetry monitoring. On the other hand, Wang et al. teaches electrochemical immunosensors constructed using graphene-gold nanoparticle composite platforms . Specifically, Wang et al. discloses that “i n the present work, sensitive and stable sandwiched electrochemical immunosensing strategies with graphene (Gr)/gold nanoparticles (GNP) composite as the immobilization platform and ferrocene (Fc) derivatives as labels were proposed ” (Abstract, page 75). Wang et al. further explains the mechanism of antibody immobilization, stating that “ the Ab 1 molecules were adsorbed on the surface of the GNP/Gr by the covalent bonding of Au of GNP and NH 2 of the protein ” (Results and discussion, paragraph 1, page 77). Lastly, Wang et al. also teaches incubation at room temperature, stating that “each incubation procedure was performed at 25 °C in order to maintain the immobilization and immunoreaction under the same experimental condition” (Experimental, paragraph 6, page 76). Elshafey et al. teaches chemical linker immobilization systems using cysteamine HCL and PDITC for attaching biomolecules to electrode surfaces. In particular, Elshafey et al. states that “s elf-assembled monolayers of cysteamine were formed by immersing the gold nanoparticle-modified electrodes (AuNPs/Au) in 10 mmol L −1 aqueous solution of cysteamine hydrochloride, for 16 h at room temperature, followed by washing the modified electrode with water to remove cysteamine residues and drying ” (Experimental, paragraph 3, page 144). Elshafey et al. further teaches PDITC activation chemistry, stating that “the terminal amino groups of cysteamine modified electrode ( Cys /AuNPs/Au) were then activated by immersing the electrodes in 10 mmol L −1 PDITC in pyridine and N,N-dimethyl formamide (DMF; v-v, 1:9) for 1 h to form a cross linked monolayer on the SAM modified AuNPs electrode” (Experimental, paragraph 3, page 144). Lastly, Elshafey et al. states that the “t he proposed immunosensor is characterized by employing cyclic voltammetry (CV), square wave voltammetry (SWV) and EIS in the presence of [Fe(CN) 6 ] 3− /[Fe (CN) 6 ] 4− redox probe ” (Introduction, paragraph 5, page 144). Raja et al. teaches washing procedures using organic solvents during electrode material preparation. Specifically, Raja et al. states that “the resulting NFN-MOF/NF, showing evident color change, was washed with DMF, water, and ethanol sequentially and dried at 70 °C for later use” (Experimental Section, paragraph 2, page 9). Faria et al. teaches the use of electrochemical immunosensors for detecting venoms from different snake species, stating that “i n this work, we developed an immunosensor capable to recognize specifically venoms from Bothrops snakes based on the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy technique. For this, Crofer22APU steel was used as transducer substrate functionalized with antibothropic antibodies. The immunosensor was incubated with different concentrations of venoms from Bothrops, Crotalus, and Micrurus in order to evaluate its specificity ” (Abstract, page 988). When considered together with Mars et al. , which detects scorpion venom toxins, the references collectively demonstrate electrochemical immunosensor detection of venom from different venomous species. Therefore, 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 venom-detecting electrochemical immunosensor of Mars et al. by incorporating the graphene-gold nanoparticle electrode platform of Wang et al. , the cysteamine HCL /PDITC immobilization chemistry and electrochemical detection techniques taught by Elshafey et al. , the washing procedures taught by Raja et al. , and the multi-species venom detection teachings of Faria et al. in order to improve antibody immobilization stability, increase electrode surface area, enhance electron transfer efficiency, and broaden the applicability of the venom-detecting electrochemical immunosensor platform. Electrochemical biosensor development frequently involves combining nanostructured electrode materials with established immunochemical detection methods in order to improve sensor sensitivity and analytical performance. Graphene-gold nanoparticle composite materials such as those described by Wang et al. are widely recognized in the field of electrochemical biosensing for their ability to increase electroactive surface area, improve electrical conductivity, and facilitate efficient electron transfer between biomolecular recognition elements and the electrode surface. A PHOSITA seeking to improve the sensitivity and performance of the SPCE-based venom immunosensor disclosed by Mars et al. would therefore have been motivated to incorporate the graphene-gold nanoparticle composite platform taught by Wang et al. into the electrode architecture. Similarly, the cysteamine/PDITC immobilization chemistry taught by Elshafey et al. represents a well-established strategy for forming stable covalent linkages between electrode surfaces and biomolecules such as antibodies. Covalent immobilization strategies are commonly used in immunosensor fabrication to improve the stability, orientation, and binding efficiency of immobilized antibodies. Incorporating the linker chemistry of Elshafey et al. into the Mars et al. immunosensor platform would therefore provide a predictable means of improving antibody attachment to the electrode surface and enhancing the reliability of venom detection. Additionally, the washing procedures described by Raja et al. represent routine electrode preparation techniques used in electrochemical material processing to remove excess reagents, stabilize surface functionalization layers, and ensure reproducible formation of nanostructured electrode coatings. Incorporating such washing steps during fabrication of the immunosensor electrode would have been an obvious process optimization consistent with standard electrode preparation practices in electrochemical biosensor development. Finally, Faria et al. demonstrates that electrochemical immunosensors can be used to detect venoms originating from multiple species of venomous organisms. A PHOSITA developing venom detection technologies would recognize that electrochemical immunosensors designed for venom detection can be applied broadly to venom proteins originating from different species by selecting antibodies capable of recognizing the relevant venom toxins. Since Mars et al. teaches electrochemical detection of scorpion venom toxins and Faria et al. demonstrates electrochemical immunosensor detection of snake venoms from multiple species, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the electrochemical venom detection platform to detect venoms originating from multiple venomous species using antibody-based recognition. Accordingly, combining the teachings of Mars et al. , Wang et al. , Elshafey et al. , Raja et al. , and Faria et al. would merely involve integrating known electrochemical biosensor fabrication techniques and applying them to detect venom proteins from different venomous species, which represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Lastly, a PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making these modifications because the references collectively disclose well-established electrochemical immunosensor fabrication techniques. Electrochemical immunosensors operate according to well-understood principles in which antibodies immobilized on an electrode surface selectively bind antigenic molecules such as venom toxins and generate a measurable electrochemical signal upon formation of an antigen-antibody complex. Techniques such as nanostructured electrode modification using graphene or gold nanoparticles, covalent immobilization of antibodies using linker chemistries, and electrochemical signal detection using voltametric methods are widely used in biosensor development and were well established prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Since each of the techniques described in the applied references had already been demonstrated to function successfully in electrochemical biosensors, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that integrating these techniques into the SPCE-based venom immunosensor platform disclosed by Mars et al. would produce a functional electrochemical detection system. In particular, incorporation of graphene-gold nanoparticle composites would be expected to improve electron transfer and increase the active surface area available for antibody immobilization, while the cysteamine/PDITC immobilization chemistry would provide stable covalent attachment of antibodies capable of recognizing venom toxins. Likewise, application of square wave voltammetry for electrochemical signal monitoring represents a standard analytical technique for measuring changes in electrode response resulting from antigen-antibody binding events. Furthermore, since venom toxins from different venomous species are antigenic proteins that can be recognized by antibodies, the same electrochemical immunosensor platform can be adapted to detect venom from different species simply by selecting appropriate antibodies targeting those venom proteins. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that combining the teachings of the applied references would result in a functional electrochemical immunosensor capable of detecting venom toxins using antibody-based electrochemical sensing. Regarding claims 6 , 7 , 9 , FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 0 , 11, and 13 , as discussed above, Faria teaches electrochemical immunosensors specifically developed for detecting snake venom using antibody-based electrochemical sensing. In particular, Faria et al. states that “it is very important to identify the type of venom implicated in the accident to ensure the most specific antivenom is administered to the patient. In Brazil, the majority of snakebite accidents are from snakes of Bothrops genus. In this work, we developed an immunosensor capable to recognize specifically venoms from Bothrops snakes based on the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy technique” (Abstract, page 988). Faria et al. further describes exposing the immunosensor to venoms from multiple snake species, stating that “t he immunosensor was incubated with different concentrations of venoms from Bothrops, Crotalus, and Micrurus in order to evaluate its specificity ” (Abstract, page 988). Therefore, 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 electrochemical venom immunosensor platform of Mars et al. by applying it to the detection of snake venom as taught by Faria et al. , while incorporating the graphene-gold nanoparticle electrode architecture of Wang et al. , the cysteamine/PDITC linker immobilization chemistry and electrochemical detection methods described by Elshafey et al. , and the electrode washing procedures taught by Raja et al . Mars et al. already teaches a functional electrochemical immunosensor capable of detecting venom toxins using antibody-based recognition on screen-printed carbon electrodes. Faria et al. teaches that electrochemical immunosensors can be used to detect snake venoms and demonstrates that antibody-based electrochemical sensing platforms can recognize venom proteins originating from snake species. Since venom toxins from different venomous organisms are proteins or peptides that can be recognized through antibody–antigen interactions, a PHOSITA would have understood that the electrochemical immunosensor architecture described by Mars et al. could be readily adapted to detect venom proteins from snake species using antibodies specific to snake venom components as taught by Faria et al . Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the electrochemical venom detection platform of Mars et al. to detect snake venom in order to extend the applicability of the venom detection system to additional medically relevant venomous species. In addition, as interpreted above, claim 10 requires the same electrochemical immunosensor architecture but directed to detection of venom from a scorpion species. Mars et al. already teaches detection of scorpion venom toxins using antibody-based electrochemical immunosensing on screen-printed carbon electrodes. Accordingly, the Mars et al. platform inherently supports detection of venom originating from scorpion species using species-specific antibodies and electrochemical monitoring of the resulting antigen-antibody interaction, consistent with the interpretation of claim 10. Furthermore, Wang et al. teaches graphene-gold nanoparticle composite electrode platforms that significantly increase electrode surface area and enhance electron transfer kinetics in electrochemical biosensors. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to incorporate such nanostructured materials into the screen-printed carbon electrode platform of Mars et al. in order to improve the electrochemical sensitivity of the immunosensor and increase the density of immobilized antibodies on the electrode surface. Similarly, Elshafey et al. teaches cysteamine/PDITC linker chemistry for forming stable covalent attachments between electrode surfaces and biomolecules. Since stable and reproducible antibody immobilization is essential for achieving reliable electrochemical immunosensor performance, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the immobilization chemistry taught by Elshafey et al. into the electrode modification process of Mars et al. in order to improve antibody attachment stability and enhance antigen-antibody binding efficiency. Additionally, Raja et al. teaches washing electrode materials with solvents such as DMF, water, and ethanol during electrode preparation procedures. Such washing steps are routinely used during electrode functionalization processes to remove residual reagents, improve surface cleanliness, and ensure proper formation of immobilization layers. Accordingly, incorporating the washing procedures taught by Raja et al. into the fabrication process of the Mars et al. immunosensor would represent a routine optimization step during electrode preparation. Taken together, the combination of Mars et al. with Wang et al. , Elshafey et al. , Raja et al. , and Faria et al. represents the predictable application of known electrochemical biosensor fabrication techniques to adapt the venom-detection immunosensor platform for detection of venom proteins originating from snake and scorpion species. Lastly, a PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making these modifications because the references collectively disclose well-established electrochemical immunosensor technologies that were widely used prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Mars et al. demonstrates a working electrochemical immunosensor platform capable of detecting venom toxins using antibody-based recognition on screen-printed carbon electrodes. Wang et al. teaches that graphene-gold nanoparticle composites enhance electrochemical signal transduction and provide increased surface area for antibody immobilization in electrochemical biosensors. Elshafey et al. demonstrates reliable covalent immobilization of biomolecules onto electrode surfaces using cysteamine/PDITC linker chemistry, while Raja et al. teaches routine solvent washing procedures used during electrode material preparation. Since each of these techniques had already been independently demonstrated to function successfully in electrochemical biosensors, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that incorporating these well-known electrode materials, immobilization chemistries, and fabrication procedures into the electrochemical immunosensor platform of Mars et al. would result in a functional venom-detection biosensor. Moreover, Faria et al. demonstrates that electrochemical immunosensors can successfully detect snake venom proteins using antibody-based recognition , while Mars et al. demonstrates detection of scorpion venom toxins using similar electrochemical immunosensor architectures . Since the detection mechanism in both Mars et al. and Faria et al. relies on antibody-antigen interactions combined with electrochemical signal monitoring, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that adapting the electrochemical immunosensor platform of Mars et al. to detect venom from snake and scorpion species would produce a functional electrochemical biosensor capable of detecting venom in those species. Claim s 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mars et al. , Wang et al. , Elshafey et al. , Raja et al. , and Faria et al. , as applied to claim s 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Ozkan et al. ( Evaluation of the Neutralizing Capacity of Androctonus Crassicauda (Olivier, 1807) Antivenom against Leiurus Quinquestriatus (Ehrenberg, 1928) Venom ( Scorpiones : Buthidae) . The Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases . Vol. 14, No. 3, August 200 8 ). With respect to the teachings of Mars et al., Wang et al., Elshafey et al., Raja et al., and Faria et al., see the discussion above, which applies equally here. These references differ from the instant claim in failing to teach or specify t he s corpion species recited in claim s 3 and 12 , namely: Leiurus quinquestriatus and Androctonus crassicaud a . However, Ozkan et al. teaches that “the two most venomous species of the family Buthidae, Leiurus quinquestriatus and Androctonus crassicauda , are found in Africa and in the Middle East” (Abstract, page 1). Ozkan et al. additionally states that “in particular, Leiurus quinquestriatus (Ehrenberg, 1928) and Androctonus crassicauda (Olivier, 1807) are recognized as the most poisonous” (Introduction, paragraph 1, page 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the venom-detecting electrochemical immunosensor platform of Mars et al. , as modified by Wang et al. , Elshafey et al. , Raja et al. , and Faria et al., to detect venom originating from the scorpion species Leiurus quinquestriatus and Androctonus crassicauda as taught by Ozkan et al . Mars et al. already teaches an electrochemical immunosensor platform capable of detecting venom toxins through antibody-based recognition on a modified electrode surface followed by electrochemical monitoring of antigen-antibody binding events. The additional references applied in the rejection of claim s 1 and 10 further teach improvements to the electrochemical sensor architecture, including nanomaterial-modified electrode platforms that enhance electroactive surface area, covalent immobilization strategies that stabilize antibody attachment to electrode surfaces, and electrode preparation procedures that improve reproducibility of the sensing interface. Ozkan et al. teaches that Leiurus quinquestriatus and Androctonus crassicauda are among the most medically significant scorpion species responsible for severe envenomation events affecting humans. A PHOSITA developing diagnostic or analytical systems for detecting venom toxins would have been motivated to apply known venom detection technologies to venoms derived from species that are known to cause clinically significant envenomation incidents. Detecting venom toxins from such species is important in medical and toxicological contexts, including identifying the venom responsible for an envenomation event, guiding appropriate antivenom treatment, and studying the biochemical properties of venom toxins from medically relevant scorpion species. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the electrochemical immunosensor platform disclosed by Mars et al. and the base combination could be applied to detect venom proteins or toxins derived from the medically important scorpion species identified by Ozkan et al . Incorporating these specific scorpion species into the venom detection method would represent a predictable application of the known electrochemical immunosensor detection platform to venoms from species known to cause clinically significant envenomation. Furthermore, the modification would not require any structural or operational change to the electrochemical immunosensor platform itself. Rather, the modification would simply involve applying the already known venom detection platform to venom samples derived from the scorpion species identified by Ozkan et al . Such selection of particular venom sources for analysis using a known detection platform represents a routine design choice made by researchers seeking to develop analytical tools for detecting toxins from medically important organisms. Lastly, a PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification for several reasons. The base combination of Mars et al , Wang, et al., Elshafey et al. , Raja et al. , and Faria et al. already teaches the structure and operation of an electrochemical immunosensor capable of detecting venom through antigen–antibody binding interactions occurring at a functionalized electrode surface followed by electrochemical monitoring of the resulting signal. Electrochemical immunosensors operate by detecting the interaction between immobilized antibodies and target antigens, such as venom proteins or peptide toxins. Since venom toxins from different species are proteins or peptides that can be recognized by antibodies, the fundamental detection principle of the immunosensor platform does not depend on the specific species from which the venom originates. Rather, the platform can be applied broadly to venom proteins derived from different venomous organisms, provided that antibodies capable of recognizing the relevant venom components are used. Ozkan et al. merely supplies the identification of specific scorpion species whose venoms are known to be highly toxic and medically significant. Applying the known electrochemical immunosensor platform to venom derived from these species would therefore represent the straightforward use of an established biosensor detection methodology to analyze venom proteins originating from known medically important scorpion species. Since the detection mechanism—antigen-antibody recognition followed by electrochemical signal monitoring—remains the same regardless of the specific venom source, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the electrochemical immunosensor platform disclosed in the base combination to function successfully when applied to venom derived from Leiurus quinquestriatus and Androctonus crassicauda . Such application would involve only routine selection of venom samples from medically relevant scorpion species and would not require undue experimentation or modification of the underlying sensor architecture. Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mars et al. , Wang et al. , Elshafey et al. , Raja et al. , and Faria et al. , as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Haidar et al. ( Snake Bites in the Arabian Peninsula, a Review Article . Journal of Arid Environments . Vol. 112, January 2015). With respect to the teachings of Mars et al., Wang et al., Elshafey et al., Raja et al., and Faria et al., see the discussion above, which applies equally here. These references differ from the instant claim in failing to teach or specify t he snake species recited in claims 4 and 8, namely: Naja arabica, Walterinnesia aegyptia , Bitis arietans , Cerastes cerastes , Echis coloratus , and Echis carinatus . However, Haidar et al. teaches medically important venomous snake species in the Arabian Peninsula, including those recited in the claims . Specifically, Haidar et al. states that “t he poisonous snakes in the Arabian Peninsula (Table 1) fit only in the first and second class of the Pakistan Medical Research Council classification of poisonous snakes : Class I: commonly cause death or serious disability; Class II: uncommonly cause bites but are recorded to cause serious effects (death or local necrosis); Class III: commonly cause bites but serious effects are very uncommon. The most common venomous snakes for this region are the vipers: Echis carinatus , E. coloratus , Cerastes gasparetti , and Pseudocerastes persicus ” (Results and Discussion, paragraph 2, page 160). Haidar further discloses specific venomous snake species relevant to the Arabian Peninsula in Table 1, including: Cerastes cerastes , Bitis arietans (puff adder), Walterinnesia aegeptia (black desert cobra), and Naja Arabica (Arabian cobra) (Table 1, page 161). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrochemical venom detection platform of Mars et al. , as combined with Wang et al. , Elshafey et al. , Raja et al. , and Faria et al., so that the system detects venom originating from the snake species Naja arabica , Walterinnesia aegyptia , Bitis arietans , Cerastes cerastes , Echis coloratus , and Echis carinatus as taught by Haidar et al . Mars et al. teaches an electrochemical immunosensor platform capable of detecting venom toxins through antibody-based recognition followed by electrochemical signal monitoring. Wang et al. , Elshafey et al. , and Raja et al. further teach structural and chemical modifications that improve electrode performance and facilitate stable antibody immobilization, thereby providing a robust biosensor architecture suitable for detecting biological toxins with improved sensitivity and reproducibility. Faria et al. teaches the application of electrochemical immunosensors specifically for detecting snake venom through antibody-antigen recognition of venom proteins. Haidar et al. identifies the particular snake species that are medically significant sources of venom in the Arabian Peninsula and are responsible for clinically relevant envenomation events affecting humans. A PHOSITA developing venom detection technologies would have recognized that diagnostic or analytical systems intended to detect venom toxins are most useful when designed to detect venoms from species known to cause medically significant envenomation. Since Haidar et al. identifies the snake species most commonly responsible for venomous bites in the region, these species represent important biological targets for venom detection technologies. Accordingly, a skilled artisan designing electrochemical immunosensors for venom detection would have been motivated to apply the known electrochemical immunosensor platform disclosed by Mars et al. and the base references to venom samples derived from the medically important snake species identified by Haidar et al . Incorporating these species into the venom detection method would represent a logical and predictable extension of the known biosensor detection platform to additional venom analytes that are known to be clinically significant. Furthermore, the modification required to incorporate the teachings of Haidar et al. would not involve altering the structure or detection mechanism of the electrochemical immunosensor platform itself. Rather, the modification would involve applying the already known venom detection platform to venom samples derived from the specific snake species identified by Haidar et al . Such selection of particular venom sources for analysis using a known biosensing platform represents a routine design decision made by researchers developing analytical tools for detecting toxins from biologically and medically important organisms. Additionally, because the base references already teach detection of venom toxins using antibody-based recognition, a skilled artisan would recognize that antibodies targeting venom proteins from the snake species identified by Haidar et al. could be incorporated into the same immunosensor architecture to enable detection of those venoms. Therefore, combining the electrochemical immunosensor platform disclosed by Mars et al. and the base references with the medically relevant snake species identified by Haidar et al. would merely involve applying a known detection technology to detect known venom analytes derived from species recognized as clinically significant. Lastly, a PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification for several reasons. Electrochemical immunosensors such as those described by Mars et al. and Faria et al. operate according to well-established biochemical and electrochemical principles in which antibodies immobilized on an electrode surface selectively bind venom proteins and generate a measurable electrochemical signal upon formation of an antigen-antibody complex. Since snake venoms consist of antigenic toxin proteins capable of eliciting antibody recognition, the underlying detection mechanism of such immunosensors does not depend on the specific snake species from which the venom originates. Instead, the electrochemical immunosensor platform can be readily adapted to detect venom from different snake species simply by selecting antibodies that recognize venom proteins produced by those species. This represents a routine practice in biosensor development, where the recognition element of a sensor is modified to target a different biological analyte while maintaining the same electrochemical detection architecture. Haidar et al. demonstrates that the snake species recited in the claims are known venomous species responsible for envenomation events in humans and therefore represent well-characterized sources of venom toxins. Since the electrochemical immunosensor platform of the base combination already teaches detection of venom proteins through antibody-antigen recognition, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that antibodies capable of recognizing venom components from the snake species identified by Haidar et al. could likewise be immobilized on the electrode surface and used to generate measurable electrochemical signals upon binding those venom proteins. Furthermore, adapting the electrochemical immunosensor platform to detect venom derived from these species would require only routine selection or preparation of antibodies specific to the venom antigens of those species, a process well within the ordinary skill of researchers working in immunoassay and biosensor development. Since the detection mechanism—antigen-antibody recognition followed by electrochemical signal monitoring—remains unchanged regardless of the particular snake species being analyzed, a PHOSITA would reasonably expect that the electrochemical immunosensor platform disclosed by Mars et al. and the base references would function successfully when applied to venoms derived from the snake species identified by Haidar et al . Ultimately, for the reasons set forth above, claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art combinations. The cited references collectively teach or render obvious each and every limitation of the claimed invention, including the use of electrochemical immunosensor platforms employing antibody-based recognition and electrochemical signal monitoring for detecting venom, electrode functionalization and antibody immobilization techniques, incubation and washing procedures, and the detection of venom from medically relevant species. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of the cited references in the manner set forth above in order to detect venom using an electrochemical immunosensor platform and to apply such detection methods to known medically significant venomous species. Furthermore, a PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making these modifications because the references describe well-understood and routine immunosensor detection techniques and demonstrate their applicability to venom detection systems. Therefore, the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the reasons stated above, all claims are rejected. Conclusion No claims are allowable . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELIZABETH OGUNTADE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6802 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 6:00 AM - 3 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bao-Thuy Nguyen can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0824 . 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. /E.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 1677 /BAO-THUY L NGUYEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1677 March 10, 2026