DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim 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) 1- 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaussabel (WO 2016087460) . Regarding claim s 1 , 14-15 and 18 , Chaussabel teaches a method for detecting an analyte comprising providing a microfluidic particle analysis device ( refer to figure 3 ) comprising a measuring channel (paragraph [43]) having a cross-sectional dimension in the range of 1 µm to 70 µm and a sensor system (paragraph [44]) for detecting a particle, which comprises a first electrode and a second electrode defining an operating space between the first electrode and the second electrode ( refer to Figure 3 ), which first electrode and which second electrode are in electrical connection via an electric circuit comprising an alternating current source (paragraph [44]) and a device for monitoring an electrical signal from at least one of the first and/or the second electrode ( refer to claim 22 ); providing a sample fluid suspected of containing the target microparticle, which target microparticle exposes an identification binding partner; providing a recognition binding component comprising a recognition binding partner having a binding affinity for the identification binding partner; mixing the recognition binding partner component with the sample fluid to provide an application suspension comprising a complex of the recognition binding partner and the identification binding partner; labelling the complex of the recognition binding partner and the identification binding partner with electrically conducting nanoparticles (Refer to Figures 1 and 2) Chaussabel further teaches applying a flow of the application suspension to the measuring channel of the microfluidic particle analysis device (refer to Figure 3); and applying an alternating current from the current source to create an electric field in the operating space and monitoring an electrical signal between the first electrode and the second electrode to detect target microparticles labelled with the electrically conducting nanoparticles from a phase of the electrical signal. (paragraphs [50-51]) Chaussabel fails to explicitly teach adjusting the conductivity of the sample fluid or the application suspension to be in the range of 5,000 µS/cm to 50,000 µS/cm, if the conductivity of the sample fluid or the application suspension is below 5,000 µS/cm . Chaussabel does teach a microchannel having an electrical conductivity with different ranges in order to observe the object pass between the pair of contacts. (paragraph [45]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the conductivity of the sample fluid or the application suspension to be in the range of 5,000 µS/cm to 50,000 µS/cm, if the conductivity of the sample fluid or the application suspension is below 5,000 µS/cm of Chaussabel device in order to observe the object pass between the pair of contacts. Regarding claim 2, Chaussabel further teaches the recognition binding component comprises the recognition binding partner immobilised on an electrically conducting nanoparticle. (paragraph [46]) Regarding claim 3, Chaussabel further teaches the electrically conducting nanoparticle is a silver nanoparticle or a gold nanoparticle. (paragraph [40]) Regarding claim 4, Chaussabel further teaches the electrically conducting nanoparticle comprises a core of an electrically non-conducting material and a coat of an electrically conducting metal. (paragraph [39]) Regarding claim 5, Chaussabel further teaches the electrically non-conducting core is a superparamagnetic nanoparticle. (paragraph [39]) Regarding claim 6, Chaussabel fails to teach the dissociation constant between the recognition binding partner and the identification binding partner is in the range of 10 ⁻ ¹⁵ M to 10 ⁻ ⁵ M. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Chaussabel with recognition binding partners and the identification binding partners is in the range of 10 ⁻ ¹⁵ M to 10 ⁻ ⁵ M in order to ensure binding for analysis . Regarding claim 7, Chaussabel further teaches the recognition binding partner is selected from the group consisting of antigens, proteins, polypeptides, oligopeptides, polysaccharides, oligosaccharides, sugars, polynucleotides, and biotin. (paragraphs [26-30]) Regarding claim 8, Chaussabel further teaches a target microparticle is a pathogenic microorganism. (paragraph [32]) Regarding claim 9, Chaussabel further teaches detecting microparticles not labelled with the electrically conducting nanoparticles. (paragraphs [26-30]) Regarding claim 10, Chaussabel further teaches the sensor system for detecting a particle comprises an upstream set of electrodes and a downstream set of electrodes with each set of electrodes having a first electrode and a second electrode, and the electrical signal between the first and the second electrode is a differential electrical signal. (Figures 4-5) Regarding claim 11, Chaussabel further teaches the alternating current is applied at two or more different frequencies. (paragraphs [50-51]) Regarding claim 12, Chaussabel further teaches the flow of the application suspension is applied to the measuring channel continuously or in batch mode. (paragraphs [50-51]) Regarding claim 13, Chaussabel further teaches a first frequency in the range of 100 kHz to 100 MHz, and a second frequency in the range of 100 kHz to 100 MHz. (paragraphs [50-51]) Regarding claim 16, Chaussabel further teaches the first and the second electrode are positioned on opposite surfaces in the analysis section. (Figures 4-5) Regarding claim 17, Chaussabel further teaches the analysis section has at least on surface, and the first and the second electrode are positioned on the same surface of the analysis section. (paragraphs [50-51]) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1273 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am to 5pm, EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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. /JYOTI Mutreja / Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798