DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/06/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 21-40 under Double Patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 21, 28 and 35 to recite a pathogen test system that includes “a microcontroller unit operatively coupled to the potentiostat control circuit and processing functions, the ionic strength and electric field monitoring module, the microcontroller unit configured to: (i) dynamically adjust at least one operating parameter of the potentiostat during the sensing interval based on the feedback signals, (ii) acquire time-series impedance data from each sensor element under the adjusted operating parameters, and (iii) generate a reader log feature vector for each sensor element derived from the time-series impedance data; a memory storing executable instructions that cause the microcontroller unit to evaluate coherence of the feature vectors across the sensor array by cross-comparison of impedance-derived signatures, and a communication interface configured to transmit only feature vectors that satisfy a coherence criterion indicative of valid hybridization detection”. The Examiner notes the added features are not recited in the cited patents of the previous Double Patenting rejection(s). Therefore, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/06/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummer et al. (US 2018/0288977) in view of Wu et al. (US 2017/0108493) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 21, 28 and 35 to recite a pathogen test system that includes “a microcontroller unit operatively coupled to the potentiostat control circuit and processing functions, the ionic strength and electric field monitoring module, the microcontroller unit configured to: (i) dynamically adjust at least one operating parameter of the potentiostat during the sensing interval based on the feedback signals, (ii) acquire time-series impedance data from each sensor element under the adjusted operating parameters, and (iii) generate a reader log feature vector for each sensor element derived from the time-series impedance data; a memory storing executable instructions that cause the microcontroller unit to evaluate coherence of the feature vectors across the sensor array by cross-comparison of impedance-derived signatures, and a communication interface configured to transmit only feature vectors that satisfy a coherence criterion indicative of valid hybridization detection” and then argued that the additional features are not taught or suggested by the cited prior art. See pages 11-13 of Remarks. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Claim Objections
Dependent claim 24 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of dependent claim 22. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Independent claims 28 and 35 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of dependent claim 21. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Dependent claims 31 and 32 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of dependent claim 29. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 21-40 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 21 recites “the adjusted operating parameters” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that claim 21 recites “configured to dynamically adjust at least one operating parameter” in lines 19-20. Therefore, the proper phrase would be “the at least one adjusted operating
parameter” to reflect the previous claim language.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the biological sensitive molecules" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 22 also recites the limitation "the surface of the conductive layer" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the test results" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 also recites the limitation "the biological sensitive molecules" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 24 also recites the limitation "the surface of the conductive layer" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the biological sensitive molecules" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 also recites the limitation "the surface of the conductive layer" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the baseline relative domain" in lines 4, 5, and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the measurements of the tests" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 27 also recites the limitation "the test results" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites “the adjusted operating parameters” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that claim 28 recites “configured to dynamically adjust at least one operating parameter” in lines 18-19.Therefore, the proper phrase would be “the at least one adjusted operating
parameter” to reflect the previous claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the biological sensitive molecules" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 29 also recites the limitation "the surface of the conductive layer" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the results of all the test results" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 also recites the limitation "the biological sensitive molecules" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 31 also recites the limitation "the surface of the conductive layer" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the biological sensitive molecules" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 32 also recites the limitation "the surface of the conductive layer" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 also recites the limitation "the biological sensitive molecules" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 33 also recites the limitation "the surface of the conductive layer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the measurements of the tests" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 34 recites the limitation "the test results" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites “the adjusted operating parameters” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that claim 35 recites “configured to dynamically adjust at least one operating parameter” in lines 19-20-19. Therefore, the proper phrase would be “the at least one adjusted operating parameter” to reflect the previous claim language.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the results of all the test results" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the biological sensitive molecules" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 38 also recites the limitation "the surface of the conductive layer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 also recites the limitation "the biological sensitive molecules" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 39 also recites the limitation "the surface of the conductive layer" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the measurements of the tests" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 40 recites the limitation "the test results" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 21, 28 and 35 recite a pathogen test system that includes a plurality of sensor elements with each sensor comprising interdigitated electrodes functionalized with single-stranded nucleic acid capture probes, a potentiostat control circuit coupled to the electrodes, and “a microcontroller unit operatively coupled to the potentiostat control circuit and processing functions, the ionic strength and electric field monitoring module, the microcontroller unit configured to: (i) dynamically adjust at least one operating parameter of the potentiostat during the sensing interval based on the feedback signals, (ii) acquire time-series impedance data from each sensor element under the adjusted operating parameters, and (iii) generate a reader log feature vector for each sensor element derived from the time-series impedance data; a memory storing executable instructions that cause the microcontroller unit to evaluate coherence of the feature vectors across the sensor array by cross-comparison of impedance-derived signatures, and a communication interface configured to transmit only feature vectors that satisfy a coherence criterion indicative of valid hybridization detection”.
The Examiner submits the additional features noted above from amended claims 21, 28 and 35 are not taught or suggested by the coted prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAYNE K HANDY whose telephone number is (571)272-1259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/DWAYNE K HANDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1798 February 19, 2026
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798