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. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Interpretation Content of Specification (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS : See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p). The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements or steps listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”. It is noted that dielectric particles and composite particles are not defined in the claims as being any specific particles. A sample is defined in the claims as being any specific substance, material, chemical, etc. None of the substances recited in the claims (except claim 5) are required to be any specific material, chemical, etc. It is noted that plural terms recited throughout the claims such as “particles” , “substances” , “frequencies”, etc. only require 2, but can include more than 2. It is noted that a “composite particle” recited throughout the claims is not defined as comprising any specific particles. In the method claims, it is noted that the claims to not provide for how, who and/or what structures are required to be employed to perform each of the recited steps. A claim is only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus. As to the apparatus claim 7, it is noted that although the claim mentions “ first dielectric particles ”, “ second dielectric particles ”, “ a sample ”, “ a first target substance ”, “ a second target substance ”, “ first substances ”, “second substances”, “a first composite particle”, “second composite particle”, “other first dielectric particle”, and “other second particle”; however, none of the prior are positively claimed as structural elements of the apparatus. All of t he prior and any other materials/structures not positively claimed as structural elements of the apparatus are considered as materials/articles that can be and/or intended to be worked upon, possibly used with the apparatus. However, it is noted that the apparatus is defined by the positively claimed structural elements listed in the claims on separate intended lines a reaction section, a separator, and detector each which are broad and not defined in the claim as being any specific structures. There is no requirement for the apparatus to be used to perform any method steps nor be used with any unclaimed materials or articles. An owner, operator, purchaser, etc. of the claimed apparatus would not be required to use the apparatus in any method at all, including that as may be intended by applicant. As to claim 8, it is noted that “a space” is not defined by any specific structure. Space can simply be air and/or any location devoid of structure. However, it is presumed that the method is required to be performed using specific structures, but no such structure is provide for in the claim as defining any space. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-8 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 the limitations " the other first dielectric particle " and “ the other second dielectric particle ” in the second paragraph . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation s in the claim. There is no prior mention of a other first dielectric particle nor a other second dielectric particle. It is unclear what is the nexus of “a first dielectric particle” (also recited in the second paragraph) to the prior first dielectric particles recited in the first paragraph and the other first dielectric particle to both of the prior because the claim does not clearly provide for such . It is also unclear what is the nexus of “a second dielectric particle” (also recited in the second paragraph) to the prior second dielectric particles recited in the first paragraph and the other second dielectric particle to both of the prior because the claim does not clearly provide for such . Furthermore, it is noted that the claim does not provide for any specific dielectric property that applicant intends to be compared. Claims 2-6 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim. As to claim 2, it is unclear what is required by the phrase “in a time-division manner” because such phrase is not clearly defined in the claim so as to determine what has to be done relative to any amount of time being divided by anything. Furthermore, it is presumed that the “when” clause (see also claim 4) is intended to be directed to defining what is required to occur during performance of the previously recited dielectrophoresis (of the second paragraph of claim 1). However, it is unclear what is required to be done such that the first and second dielectrophoresis are “based on” an alternating current voltage because the claim does not clearly recite such. There is no requirement of any alternating current voltage to be applied to anything. Therefore, it is unclear what is required by the claim. As to claims 3 and 6, it is unclear what/which first dielectric particle and second dielectric particle are being referenced by the phrases “the first dielectric particle” and “the second dielectric particle” because claim 1 previously recites “first dielectric particles”, “second dielectric particles”, “the other first dielectric particle” and “the other first dielectric particle”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is considered as, structurally required to be “a base portion” of a dielectric particle because such is not clearly defined in the claims. Also applicable to the phrase “base material” in claim 8 which is not defined as being any specific material. Furthermore, as to claim 6, it is noted that although no spectroscopic step is required to performed in the method, the claim does not provide for any specific spectroscopic property that applicant intends to be compared. Claim 7 employs the same or similar language of claim 1. See prior applicable rejections of claim 1 above. The language employed in claim 8 is vague, ambiguous and confusing as whole such that is difficult to ascertain/determine the scope of the claim. As to claim 8, in (a), it is noted that a “base material” is not defined as any specific material. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant, required by the phrase “which modifies” because it is unclear if the method is intended to include steps requiring the first and second base materials to be modified. As presently drafted, the claim does not include any such modifying steps. The phrase appears to be directed to what is possible, but the claim also fails to indicate what is considered as, required to be considered as a modification of the first and second base materials. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant required by each of the paragraphs, “ the first dielectric particles contain the third dielectric particle and a fifth dielectric particle, the second dielectric particles contain the fourth dielectric particle and a sixth dielectric particle, ” because (in the first paragraph above) i t is unclear if each of the first dielectric particles contains a third dielectric particle and a fifth dielectric particle or if the third dielectric particle and fifth dielectric particle are required to be contained (amongst/within) in the (plurality of) first dielectric particles. If the latter, it is unclear how the first dielectric particles contain of the (single) third dielectric particle and a (single) fifth dielectric particle. The same rationale/reasoning is applicable to the second paragraph directed to “the second dielectric particles”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant required by each of the next 2 paragraphs following the second paragraph referenced above: “ the first composite particle contains the fifth dielectric particle and a third target substance, which is contained in the first target substances, and the fifth dielectric particle and the third target substance are bound to each other via the first substance, the second composite particle contains the sixth dielectric particle and a fourth target substance, which is contained in the second target substances, and the sixth dielectric particle and the fourth target substance are bound to each other via the second substance, ” because of the same reasons stated above relative to the prior 2 paragraphs addressed above. Additionally, it is noted that the first prior paragraph previously states “the first dielectric particles contain t he third dielectric particle and a fifth dielectric particle ” and subsequently the claim recites “the first composite particle contains the fifth dielectric particle and a third target substance, which is contained in the first target substances ”. However, it is unclear how the single fifth dielectric particle is contained in both the first dielectric particles and the first composite material because the claim does not clearly indicate such. Here is no clear structural nexus between the first dielectric particles and the first composite particle. Furthermore, it is unclear how a single third target substance is also contained in the first target substances (plurality) because the claim does not clearly provide for such. The same reasoning/remarks above is also applicable to the paragraph beginning with “the second composite particle” relative to the second dielectric particles and sixth dielectric particle. It is unclear what is the nexus of the various particles and substances recited within the claim because the claim does not clearly provide for such. As to claim 8, in (b) , it is unclear what is structurally required to be considered as “a first region in the first space” because like the space such first region is not defined by any structure, no structural boundaries, dimensions so as to determine where such region begins and ends to distinguish such first region from any other “region” or structure. Furthermore, it is unclear how applying voltages results in detection of any particles because there is no detector nor any other structure recited that can provide for any detection. There is indication as to how any voltages are related to any detection of any of the recited particles. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 – (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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada, Junko JP2010-164307 . Yamada describes a detection method in which two or more types of carrier particles having different dielectrophoresis characteristics and a detection device 99 are used, wherein: the detection device 99 comprises a voltage application unit 100, a reaction field 150, an i maging unit 220, and an analysis control unit 250; the detection method comprises 1) a first step 31 in which carrier particles are prepared, the carrier particles having different dielectrophoresis characteristics according to the type of substance to be detected, and having fixed on the surface thereof a recognition substance that binds specifically to each substance to be detected, 2) a second step 32 in which a mixed solution containing a specimen and the carrier particles is prepared, 3) a third step 33 in which an AC voltage is applied to the mixed solution to form the carrier particles into a pearl chain, and 4) a fourth step 34 in which application of the AC voltage is stopped, after which the agglomeration state of the carrier particles is observed using image recognition or a particle size distribution meter, and the frequency and/ or voltage value of the AC voltage is selected in consideration of the dielectrophoresis characteristics of the particles; in the first step, first carrier particles 10 A having fixed on the surface thereof a protein A that binds specifically to a substance A to be detected, second carrier particles 10 B having fixed on the surface thereof a protein B that binds specifically to a second substance B to be detected, and carrier particles according to the type of substance to be detected are prepared; an antibody having a high affinity for the substance to be detected is used as the protein fixed on the carrier particles; and the type and combination of the carrier particles 10 A and carrier particles 10 B is not limited as long as the carrier particles 10 A and the carrier particles 10 B can be differentiated by size, shape, material, color, or the like during measurements (paragraphs [0006], [0014][0065], fig. 1-11. T he "substance A to be detected" corresponds to the "first target substance" ; the "protein A" corresponds to the "first substance" ; the "first carrier particles 10 A" correspond to the "first dielectric particles" ; the "substance B to be detected" corresponds to the "second target substance" ; the "protein B" corresponds to the "second substance" ; and the "second carrier particles 10 B" correspond to the "second dielectric particles" of Yamada . 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. Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada, Junko JP2010-164307 . Yamada does not specify the first dielectrophoresis and second dielectrophoresis are caused in a time-division manner, the first dielectrophoresis being based on an alternating current voltage at a first frequency, the second dielectrophoresis being based on an alternating current voltage at a second frequency different from the first frequency. The Applicant is advised that the Supreme Court recently clarified that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc. , 127 Sup. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143). Common sense, predictability, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art may suffice to establish obviousness. Yamada indicates that the crossover frequency differs for each carrier particle (paragraphs [0049], [0050]). It would have been obvious to, within the common sense, knowledge and skill in the art to modify teachings of Yamada such that detection is implemented at a plurality of frequencies according to the number of types of substances to be detected and the types of carrier particles used when detecting the substances as such would yield results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada as applied above, and further in view of Arimoto, WO 2020/241160 . Yamada does not disclose t hat third dielectric particles and fourth dielectric particles are detected in addition to first composite particles and second composite particles . Arimoto discloses dielectrophoresis is implemented using carrier particles, separating bound and unbound bodies ( paragraphs [0014]-[0080], fig. 1-8) . It would have been obvious to and within the common sense, knowledge and skill in the art to modify teachings of Yamada to particles as desired including the dielectric particles and composite particles. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thiriet; Pierre-Emmanuel et al.; Swett; Jacob; ARIMOTO; SATOSHI; ARIMOTO; SATOSHI; SEO; Minah et al.; HWANG; Kyo Seon et al.; De Freitas Dias; Tomas Miguel et al.; Yanik; Ahmet Ali et al.; IIZUKA; KUNIHIKO et al.; HWANG; Kyoseon et al.; OKUMURA; YASUAKI et al.; Sato; Kazumasa et al.; CHENG; I-Fang et al.; Schnelle; Thomas; Auerswald; Janko et al.; Segawa, Yuji et al.; Manaresi, Nicolo et al.; Huang, Mingxian et al.; Huang, Ying et al.; and Becker, Frederick F. et al. disclose dielectric devices and methods of use. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1258 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday. . 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 Charles Capozzi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /BRIAN R GORDON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798