DETAILED ACTION This action is pursuant to claims filed on 12/20/2023 . Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 1-17 and 19-21 is as follows. 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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference character “P1” in Figure 15 does not appear in the specification Reference character “P2” in Figure 15 does not appear in the specification Reference character “P3” in Figure 15 does not appear in the specification Reference character “P4” in Figure 15 does not appear in the specification Reference character “P5” in Figure 15 does not appear in the specification Reference character “P6” in Figure 15 does not appear in the specification Reference character “P7” in Figure 15 does not appear in the specification Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Claim s 5-7, 12, and 15-16 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. Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “an antibody configured to bind a pathogenic antigen” in lines 2-3 . It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the antibody configured to bind to a target antigen from claim 2, or if it is referring to a different antibody. If it is referring to the antibody from claim 2, it needs to refer back to it. If it is referring to a different antibody, it needs to be distinguished from the antibody configured to bind to a target antigen from claim 2. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the antibody configured to bind a target antigen from claim 2. Claims 6-7 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 5. Further regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “an antibody indicative of an infection” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the antibody from claim 2, or a different antibody. If it is referring to the antibody from claim 2, it needs to refer back to it. If it is referring to a different antibody, it needs to be distinguished from the antibody from claim 2. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the antibody from claim 2. Claims 6-7 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 5. Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the antigen configured to bind the antibody indicative of the infection” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the antigen configured to bind to a target antibody from claim 2, or a different antigen. If it is meant to refer to the antigen from claim 2, it needs to refer back to it. If it is referring to a different antigen, it needs to be distinguished from the antibody from claim 2 . For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the antigen configured to bind a target antibody from claim 2. Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “the gate effect transistor” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the field-effect transistor from claim 11, or a different transistor. If it is meant to refer to the field-effect transistor from claim 11, it needs to refer back to it. If it is referring to a different transistor, it needs to be properly introduced. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the field-effect transistor from claim 11. Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “two or more nanomechanical sensors” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to include the nanomechanical sensor of claim 1, or different nanomechanical sensors. If it is referring to the nanomechanical sensor from claim 1, it needs to refer back to it. If it is referring to different nanomechanical sensors, it needs to be distinguished from the nanomechanical sensor from claim 1. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the nanomechanical sensor from claim 1. Further regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “ one or more target antibodies” in lines 3-4. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the target antibody of claim 13, or different target antibodies. If it is referring to the target antibody from claim 13, it needs to refer back to it. If it is referring to different target antibodies, it needs to be distinguished from the target antibody from claim 13. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the target antibody from claim 13. Further regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “one or more target antigens” in line 4. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the target antigen from claim 13, or different target antigens. If it is referring to the target antigen from claim 13, it needs to refer back to it. If it is referring to different target antigens, it needs to be distinguished from the target antigen from claim 13. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the target antigen from claim 13. Further regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “a signal indicative of the response of each nanomechanical sensor” in lines 5-6. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the signal indicative of the response of the nanomechanical sensor from claim 13, or a different signal. If it is referring to the signal from claim 13, it needs to refer back to it. If it is referring to a different signal, it needs to be distinguished from the signal indicative of the response of the nanomechanical sensor from claim 13. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the signal indicative of the response of the nanomechanical sensor from claim 13. Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “one or more signals” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation refers to the signal from claim 13, or different signals. If it is referring to the signal from claim 13, it needs to refer back to it. If it is referring to different signals, it needs to be distinguished from the signal from claim 13. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the signal from claim 13. Further regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “the one or more nanomechanical sensors” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only one nanomechanical sensor has been introduced, not a plurality of nanomechanical sensors. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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, 13, 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamayo (US 20200072829) . Regarding independent claim 1, Tamayo teaches a nanomechanical sensor ( [0075]: “the system is arranged in a micro or nanomechanical biosensor such that optomechanical-plasmonic signals can be detected and analyzed” ) comprising an antibody-functionalized microcantilever ( [0062]: “the system of the invention can be used in any type of biosensor or mechanical resonator formation. Particularly, in the system of the invention the substrate can be in the form of a microcantilever”; [0116]: “The cantilever is functionalized with capture antibodies” ) . Regarding claim 13, Tamayo teaches a system for detection of a target antigen or a target antibody in a sample, the system comprising the nanomechanical sensor according to claim 1 ( Abstract: “The present invention relates to a system for biodetection applications comprising two basic elements, a substrate with a functionalized surface and a nanoparticle, the system being capable of enhancing the plasmonic effect of the nanoparticle. The invention also relates to a biosensor incorporating such system, in addition to the method for detecting and quantifying a target analyte selected in a sample using such system” ) and a detector for detecting a response of the nanomechanical sensor to the sample ( [0029]: “Detection element: It is the element of the system bound to the nanoparticle which can recognize and specifically bind to the target analyte. The detection element together with the nanoparticle allow target analyte detection when it is present in the sample” ) and generating a signal indicative of the response of the nanomechanical sensor to the sample ( [0090]: “Step c) comprises irradiating the substrate surface with electromagnetic radiation such that it shows the presence or absence of the nanoparticle in the substrate. The incident electromagnetic radiation on the substrate resulting from step b) will show whether or not the sample contains the target analyte. If the target analyte is present in the sample, the incident electromagnetic radiation will produce a plasmonic effect in the nanoparticle that will be greatly enhanced by the particular phenomena taking place within the substrate cavity due to its particular design” ) . Regarding claim 15, Tamayo teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the system comprises two or more nanomechanical sensors functionalized to detect different target antigens, different target antibodies, or any combination of one or more target antibodies and one or more target antigens in the sample ( [0077]: “the biosensor is arranged in the form of an array comprising multiple systems according to the invention, each system comprising a substrate designed for detecting a different target analyte or different concentrations of the same analyte” ) and wherein the detector detects the response of each nanomechanical sensor ( [0029]: “Detection element: It is the element of the system bound to the nanoparticle which can recognize and specifically bind to the target analyte. The detection element together with the nanoparticle allow target analyte detection when it is present in the sample” ) and generates a signal indicative of the response of each nanomechanical sensor ( [0090]: “Step c) comprises irradiating the substrate surface with electromagnetic radiation such that it shows the presence or absence of the nanoparticle in the substrate. The incident electromagnetic radiation on the substrate resulting from step b) will show whether or not the sample contains the target analyte. If the target analyte is present in the sample, the incident electromagnetic radiation will produce a plasmonic effect in the nanoparticle that will be greatly enhanced by the particular phenomena taking place within the substrate cavity due to its particular design” ) . Regarding claim 19, Tamayo teaches a method for the detection of a target antigen or a target antibody in a sample, the method comprising contacting the nanomechanical sensor according to claim 1 with the sample ( [0078]: “Another aspect of the invention is a method for detecting and/or quantifying a target analyte selected in a sample which comprises: [0079] a) contacting a sample with a substrate of dielectric material having a surface functionalized with a recognition element which can bind specifically to the target analyte” ) and detecting for a response of the antibody-functionalized microcantilever to the sample ( [0029]: “Detection element: It is the element of the system bound to the nanoparticle which can recognize and specifically bind to the target analyte. The detection element together with the nanoparticle allow target analyte detection when it is present in the sample” ) . Regarding claim 21 , Tamayo teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the sample comprises less than 10 ng/ml of the target antigen or the target antibody ( [0096]: “The method of the present invention allows ultra-low limits of detection since it discriminates concentrations around 10 ag/ml “; [0124]: “Mechanical detection CEA protein biomarker. (a) Mechanical resonance frequency of a silicon cantilever before and after the step of recognition with the antibodies bound to nanoparticles for a control experiment and for a CEA detection assay (1 pg/ml in PBS)” ) . 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 2-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamayo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP ‘462 (JP 2007504462) . Citations to JP 2009504462 will refer to the English Machine Translation that accompanies this Office Action. Regarding claim 2, Tamayo teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein the antibody-functionalized microcantilever comprises a microcantilever ( [0062]: “the system of the invention can be used in any type of biosensor or mechanical resonator formation. Particularly, in the system of the invention the substrate can be in the form of a microcantilever” ) , an antibody configured to bind a target antigen or an antigen configured to bind a target antibody ( [0065]: “The recognition element functionalizing the substrate surface can be any element which can recognize and bind specifically to a target analyte. In this sense, the recognition element can be an antibody (a polyclonal or monoclonal antibody), a receptor (a cell surface receptor such as an opioid receptor), a peptide (such as an opioid peptide), a protein (such as lectins), a carbohydrate (such as lipopolysaccharide O-antigen), a nucleic acid (a DNA or RNA sequence), a cell (protozoan cells, bacterial cells, fungal cell, eukaryotic cells), a microorganism or a part thereof (such as bacterial walls, cell organelles such as mitochondria, cell vesicles, etc). In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the recognition element is an antibody, more preferably a monoclonal antibody” ) , and covalently tethering the antibody or the antigen to the microcantilever ( [0132]: “A solution containing 50 μg/ml of the monoclonal mouse anti-carcinoembryonic antigen 3C6 (MAb3C6) capture antibody in 10 mM MES at pH 5.5 was prepared. The cantilevers were incubated for 2 hours at 37° C. After that, the samples were washed with 10 mM MES at pH 5.5 and incubated for 45 minutes at 37° C. with 10 mM sodium phosphate buffer at pH 8.0 with 0.3 M NaCl to desorb antibodies not covalently bound to the surface. For control experiments, anti-peroxidase (anti-HRP) antibody produced in rabbit was immobilized on the upper side of the cantilever surface instead of MAb3C6. The same antibody concentration and method applied to the covalent and oriented immobilization of MAb3C6 were used for the control samples. Before immobilization of the control antibody on the cantilevers, 1 ml of a solution of 4 mg/ml of anti-HRP in Milli-Q water was dialyzed overnight at 4° C.”; [0133]: “After immobilization of capture antibodies (MAb3C6) and control antibodies (anti-HRP) in a covalent and oriented mode and desorption of the antibodies not covalently bound to the surface, the cantilever surface was blocked to prevent non-specific adsorptions”; [0116]: “The cantilever is functionalized with capture antibodies. Functionalization comprises silanization, the binding of the antibody on the upper surface of the cantilever and blocking with polyethylene glycol to minimize non-specific interactions on the lower surface of the cantilever and gaps between the antibodies. (b) The cantilever is then immersed in the serum sample for binding the biomarker protein, if it is present, by immunoreaction with the capture antibodies (recognition element). (c) Finally, the immunoreactions are developed, exposing the cantilever to a primary antibody (detection element) which is bound to a gold nanoparticle 100 nm in diameter which recognizes a specific free region of the captured biomarker” ) . However, Tamayo does not disclose a specific tether to be user to covalently tether the antibody or antigen to the microcantilever. JP ‘462 discloses sensors that use tethers to bind antibodies to a receptor service. Specifically, JP ‘462 teaches a tether covalently tethering the antibody or the antigen to the microcantilever ( Page 15: “the candidate artificial receptors of the present invention can be used to find receptor surfaces that bind proteins in a preferred conformation or orientation. Many proteins (eg, antibodies, enzymes, receptors) are stable and / or active in specific environments. A defined receptor surface can be used to create a binding environment that selectively retains or orients proteins for maximum stability and / or activity. In one embodiment, the artificial receptors of the present invention can be used to form a bioactive surface. For example, the receptor surface can be used to specifically bind the active conformation of an antibody or enzyme.”; Page 21: “the support, matrix, or lawn includes a charged site (eg, a first charged site). Suitable charged sites include positively charged sites and negatively charged sites. Suitable positively charged sites (eg, at neutral pH in aqueous compositions) include amines, quaternary ammonium sites, ferrocene and the like. Suitable negatively charged sites (eg, in aqueous compositions, at neutral pH) carboxylates, phenols, phosphates, phosphonates, phosphines substituted by strong electron withdrawing groups (eg, tetrachlorophenol) Acid salts, sulfates, sulfonates, thiocarboxylic acids, hydroxamic acids and the like.” ) . Tamayo and JP ‘462 are analogous arts as they are both related to sensors that use antibodies for detection of target analytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the tether from JP ‘462 into the sensor from Tamayo as it allows the sensor to only bind the specific antibodies required for detection and allows for proper covalent bonding of the antibody or antigen. Regarding claim 3, the Tamayo/JP ‘462 combination teaches the sensor of claim 2, wherein the microcantilever has an effective surface density of tethered antibodies or antigens thereon (Tamayo, [0017]: “The study showed that the performance of the assay depends critically on both the antibody surface density and the blocking strategies. It was found that optimal conditions involve antibody surface densities near but below saturation” ) . Regarding claim 8, the Tamayo/JP ‘462 combination teaches the sensor of claim 2, wherein the antibody or the antigen is conjugated to the tether by EDC-NHS chemistry (Tamayo, [0131]: “Before surface functionalization, the cantilever arrays were cleaned with piranha solution (3H.sub.2SO.sub.4:1H.sub.2O.sub.2) (it should be noted that piranha solution is extremely corrosive and reactive as well as potentially explosive) for 15 minutes at room temperature (RT). The cantilevers were rinsed three times with Milli-Q water and dried under a nitrogen stream. The cantilevers were immersed in a 0.2% solution of (3-glycidyloxypropyl)trimethoxysilane in dry toluene overnight at room temperature. After that, the samples were washed with toluene, Milli-Q water and dried under N.sub.2. A solution of 100 mM NTA in 50 mM carbonate buffer at pH 9.5 was prepared and the cantilevers were incubated overnight at 25° C. under gentle stirring. The cantilevers were then rinsed with 50 mM carbonate buffer at pH 9.5, Milli-Q water and dried under N.sub.2. The carboxyl groups on the cantilever surface were activated by immersion in a mixed solution of 100 mM EDC and 150 mM sulfo-NHS, both dissolved in 10 mM MES at pH 5.5. The cantilevers were incubated for 45 minutes at 37° C. under gentle stirring. The samples were rinsed well with 10 mM MES” ) . Regarding claim 9, the Tamayo/JP ‘462 combination teaches the sensor of claim 2, wherein the microcantilever comprises gold (Tamayo, [0127]: “Gold nanoparticles of various sizes and shapes useful in the system of the invention”; [0128]: “The detection antibody bound to a gold nanoparticle 100 nm in diameter which converted and amplified the biorecognition product into two detectable physical signals” ) . Regarding claim 10, the Tamayo/JP ‘462 combination teaches the sensor of claim 2, wherein the tether is prepared from a thiocarboxylic acid precursor (JP ‘462, Page 15: “the candidate artificial receptors of the present invention can be used to find receptor surfaces that bind proteins in a preferred conformation or orientation. Many proteins (eg, antibodies, enzymes, receptors) are stable and / or active in specific environments. A defined receptor surface can be used to create a binding environment that selectively retains or orients proteins for maximum stability and / or activity. In one embodiment, the artificial receptors of the present invention can be used to form a bioactive surface. For example, the receptor surface can be used to specifically bind the active conformation of an antibody or enzyme.”; Page 21: “the support, matrix, or lawn includes a charged site (eg, a first charged site). Suitable charged sites include positively charged sites and negatively charged sites. Suitable positively charged sites (eg, at neutral pH in aqueous compositions) include amines, quaternary ammonium sites, ferrocene and the like. Suitable negatively charged sites (eg, in aqueous compositions, at neutral pH) carboxylates, phenols, phosphates, phosphonates, phosphines substituted by strong electron withdrawing groups (eg, tetrachlorophenol) Acid salts, sulfates, sulfonates, thiocarboxylic acids, hydroxamic acids and the like.” ) . Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Tamayo/JP ‘462 combination as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hwang (US 20110212511) . Regarding claim 4, the Tamayo/JP ‘462 combination teaches the sensor of claim 2, wherein the microcantilever is functionalized (Tamayo, [0050]-[0051]: “A first objective of the invention relates to a system for biodetection applications comprising: a substrate of dielectric material having at least one surface functionalized with a recognition element which can bind specifically to a target analyte” ) . However, the Tamayo/JP ‘462 combination is silent on what solution the microcantilever is functionalized with. Hwang discloses a system for detecting biomolecules with high sensitivity using a microcantilever. Specifically, Hwang discloses functionalizing the microcantilever with an antibody precursor solution having an antibody concentration of 10 µg/ml - 100 µg/ml or an antigen precursor solution having an antibody concentration of 10 µg/ml - 100 µg/ml ( [0041]: “To immobilize a monoclonal antibody against prostate specific antigen, the micro-cantilever having the SAM of calixcrown formed thereon is left in 10 .mu.g/mL of aqueous monoclonal antibody against prostate specific antigen/phosphate buffered saline (PBS) solution at room temperature for 1 hour.” ) . Tamayo and Hwang are analogous arts as they are both related to sensors used to detect biomolecules using a microcantilever. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the precursor from Hwang into the Tamayo/JP ‘462 combination as the combination is silent on the solution used to functionalize the microcantilever, and Hwang discloses a suitable precursor in an analogous device. Claim s 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Tamayo/JP ‘462 combination as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tabib-Azar (WO 2021081476). Regarding claim 5, the Tamayo/JP ‘462 combination teaches the sensor of claim 2 . However, the Tamayo/JP ‘462 combination is silent on the specific antibodies or antigens being detected. Tabib-Azar discloses pathogen sensors. Specifically, Tabib-Azar teaches wherein the sensor comprises an antibody configured to bind a pathogenic antigen or an antibody indicative of an infection ( Page 10, lines 19-22: “a colorimetric pathogen sensor 100 as disclosed herein can comprise a substrate 110 and an molecular recognition group (e.g. aptamer) 120 coupled to the substrate 110. The molecular recognition group 120 can be operable to selectively bind to a target pathogen 130”; Page 1, lines 22-23: “After 7-14 days of infection, the body also produces antibodies that can be detected to infer the infection”; Page 11, lines 3-4: “Viral biomolecules can be any chemical entity which is directly or indirectly related to the presence of viruses by indicating a current or previous infection with the virus” ) . Tamayo and Tabib-Azar are analogous arts as they are both related to sensors for detecting antibodies and antigens. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the specific antibody being detected from Tabib-Azar into the Tamayo/JP ‘462 combination as the combination is silent on the specific antibodies it detects, and Tabib-Azar discloses suitable antibodies in an analogous device. Regarding claim 6, the Tamayo/JP ‘462/Tabib-Azar combination teaches the sensor of claim 5, wherein the antibody-functionalized microcantilever comprises the antibody configured to bind the pathogenic antigen and the pathogenic antigen is a SARS-CoV-2 protein (Tabib-Azar, Page 12, line 15: “the aptamers can be selective for SARS-CoV-2” ) . Regarding claim 7, , the Tamayo/JP ‘462/Tabib-Azar combination teaches the sensor of claim 5, wherein the antibody-functionalized microcantilever comprises the antigen configured to bind the antibody indicative of the infection and the antibody is indicative for a SARS-CoV-2 infection (Tabib-Azar, Page 12, line 15: “the aptamers can be selective for SARS-CoV-2” ) . Claim s 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamayo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shekhawat (US 7759924). Regarding claim 11, Tamayo teaches the sensor of claim 1 . However, Tamayo does not teach wherein the sensor comprises a field-effect transistor. Shekhawat discloses a microcantilever for detecting antibodies. Specifically, Shekhawat teaches wherein the sensor comprises a field-effect transistor ( Column 15, lines 33-38: “an electronic transduction paradigm includes two-dimensional microcantilever arrays with geometrically configured Bi-MOSFETs (metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors) embedded in a high stress region of one or more microcantilevers, optimized or improved after finite-element analysis simulations” ) . Tamayo and Shekhawat are analogous arts as they are both related to microcantilevers for detecting antibodies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the field-effect transistor from Shekhawat into the device from Tamayo as it allows the sensor to be optimized for detection, providing an improved analysis. Regarding claim 12, the Tamayo/Shekhawat combination teaches the sensor of claim 11, wherein the gate effect transistor is a metal-oxide- semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) (Shekhawat, Column 15, lines 33-38: “an electronic transduction paradigm includes two-dimensional microcantilever arrays with geometrically configured Bi-MOSFETs (metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors) embedded in a high stress region of one or more microcantilevers, optimized or improved after finite-element analysis simulations” ) . Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamayo as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Vafai (US 20140180636). Regarding claim 14, Tamayo teaches the system of claim 13 . However, Tamayo is silent on what the response of the sensor is. Vafai discloses a method and system for analyzing detection enhancement of microcantilevers. Specifically, Vafai teaches wherein the response is a bending moment ( [0046]: “When one side of the microcantilever is coated with a thin film of receptor, the microcantilever will bend if the analyte molecules adhere on that layer. This adhesion causes a difference in the surface stresses across the microcantilever cross-section (.DELTA..sigma.). This results in an internal bending moment M at each cross-section” ) . Tamayo and Vafai are analogous art as they are both related to microcantilevers to detect antibodies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the response being a bending moment from Vafai into the system from Tamayo as Tamayo is silent on what the response of the sensor is, and Vafai discloses a suitable response in an analogous device. Claim s 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamayo as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Daniels (US 12031982). Regarding claim 16, Tamayo teaches the system of claim 13 . However, Tamayo does not teach the system further comprising a computing platform having a communication interface that receives one or more signals from the detector, and a computer in communication with the communication interface, wherein the computer comprises a computer processor and a computer readable medium comprising machine-executable code that, upon execution by the computer processor, implements a method for determining the response of the one or more nanomechanical sensors to the sample. Daniels discloses a system using exhaled breath condensate for testing for a biomarker of COVID-19. Specifically, Daniels teaches the system further comprising a computing platform ( Column 28 , line 51-Column 29, line 12 : “In accordance with another aspect of the invention, an apparatus, comprises: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least the following: detecting one or more biometric parameters using a droplet harvesting structure for converting breath vapor to a fluid droplet for forming a fluid sample and a testing system having a biomarker testing zone for receiving the fluid sample and detecting the biometric parameter, where the biometric parameters are biomarkers dependent on at least one physiological change to a patient in response to a concerning condition such as a virus infection; receiving the one or more biometric parameters and applying probabilistic analysis to determine if at least one physiological change threshold has been exceeded dependent on the probabilistic analysis of the one or more biometric parameters; and activating an action depending on the determined exceeded said at least one physiological change. ”) having a communication interface that receives one or more signals from the detector, and a computer in communication with the communication interface (Column 24, lines 33-38: “ a testing system for receiving the fluid biological sample from the breath droplet harvester and testing for a target analyte, and a wireless communication electronic circuit for detecting a result of the testing for the target analyte and communicating the result to a wireless receiver ”) , wherein the computer comprises a computer processor and a computer readable medium comprising machine-executable code that, upon execution by the computer processor (Column 4, lines 51-52: “a n apparatus, comprises: at least one processor ”) , implements a method for determining the response of the one or more nanomechanical sensors to the sample (Column 4, lines 38-41: “ a computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium bearing computer program code embodied therein for use with a computer, the computer program code comprising: code for: detecting one or more biometric parameters ”) . Tamayo and Daniels are analogous arts as they are both related to sensors that test samples for antibodies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the computer platform from Daniels into the system from Tamayo as it allows the system to analyze and compute the results on a separate computer device, which has more computing capabilities and analysis processes, which can lead to a more accurate and comprehensive analysis. Regarding claim 17, Tamayo teaches the system of claim 13 . However, Tamayo is silent on where the sample for the sensor is gathered. Daniels teaches the system further comprising a breath collector that is operably connected to the sensor ( Abstract: “The droplet harvesting structure may include at least one of a hydrophobic field for receiving the breath vapor and forming the fluid droplet from the received breath vapor and hydrophilic channels for receiving the fluid droplet and channeling the fluid droplet towards the testing system.” ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the breath collector from Daniels into the system from Tamayo as Tamayo is silent on where the sample is received from, and Daniels provides a suitable sample collector in an analogous device. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamayo as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Melker (US 20090005270). Regarding claim 20, Tamayo teaches the method of claim 19 . However, Tamayo is silent on how long the response is detected within. Melker discloses a sensor for detecting antibodies using a microcantilever. Specifically, Melker teaches wherein the response to the target antigen or the target antibody is detected within 5 minutes of contacting the nanomechanical sensor with the sample ( [0110]: “The technology is very portable (small and low power consumption), relatively fast in response time (less than 1 minute)” ) . Tamayo and Melker are analogous arts as they are both related to microcantilevers used to detect antibodies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the detection time from Melker into the system from Tamayo as Tamayo is silent on the detection time, and Melker discloses a suitable detection time in an analogous device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ERIN K MCCORMACK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1886 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 7:30-5 . 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 Jason Sims can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712727540 . 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.K.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /MATTHEW KREMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791