CTNF 18/759,768 CTNF 90809 Detailed Action 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-10 and 18-20 of U.S. Application 18/759,768 filed on 06/28/2024 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2024 and 11/13/2025 has been considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions 08-05 AIA Claim s 11-17 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group 2 , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 12, 2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being unpatentable over Hull et al (USPGPub 20180333724). Regarding claim 18, Hull discloses a system (using figs 1-23) for particle detection, comprising: an electrode probing structure (100) having a first array of electrodes (111b) and a second array of electrodes (111a) arranged parallel to the first array of electrodes, defining a space (using 142) between the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes; at least one controller (using at least 120) configured to control a flow of fluid containing particles into (using 112) and out (using 114) of the space between the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes; a data acquisition unit (using assay) configured to receive signals from the electrode probing structure, the signals are generated when an electric potential (pars 7 and 8 discloses electrical characteristic and impedance respectively) is applied to each pair of parallel electrodes of the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes; and a processor (using assay) configured to analyze the received signals to determine at least one characteristic of the particles of the fluid containing particles in the space between the pairs of parallel electrodes (par 6 discloses assay device configured to process samples and acquire data). Regarding claim 19, Hull discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine characteristics of the particles, including a type, a size, a number, motion characteristics, and a time to completely fill the space between the first and second arrays of electrodes as a function of a particle flow rate (par 6 discloses measuring size and/or shape). Regarding claim 20, Hull discloses wherein the processor is configured to control a width of the space between the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes to determine characteristics of the particles based on varying flow rates, from static to dynamic (par 62 discloses changing the space between substrates). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull et al (USPGPub 20180333724) in view of Eriksson et al (USPGPub 20130093410) . PNG media_image1.png 647 478 media_image1.png Greyscale Prior Art: Hull Regarding claim 1, Hull discloses an electrode probing structure (shown in figs 1-23a) comprising: a first array of electrodes (111b) arranged to be spaced apart; a second array of electrodes (111a) arranged parallel to the first array of electrodes; a space (142) disposed between the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes (shown in figs 1-8), the space being a cavity within which a fluid containing particles to be studied is housed (par 48 discloses disposed being a liquid or fluid); at least one inlet (112) disposed adjacent the first array of electrodes or the second array of electrodes to introduce the fluid containing particles into the space (shown in fig 1A as adjacent to the first or second electrodes); and at least one outlet (114 and 116) disposed adjacent the first array of electrodes or the second array of electrodes to remove the fluid containing particles from the space (par 56 discloses pumping and removing medium through these ports); wherein each pair of parallel electrodes of the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes is configured to generate signals corresponding to at least one characteristic of the particles of the fluid containing particles present in the space upon receiving an electric potential (par 62 discloses signals and spaced maintained by a spaced between, Abstract and claim 8 discloses determining electrical information based on the fluid flowing between the electrodes). Hull does not fully disclose a first array of electrodes arranged to be radially spaced apart about a spatial point. However, Eriksson discloses a first array of electrodes (E1) arranged to be radially spaced apart about a spatial point (claim 24 discloses E1 and E2 are spaced in the radial direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hull in view of Eriksson in order to determine characteristics of the fluid sample flowing through an electrode channel. Regarding claim 2, Hull discloses wherein each of the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes is arranged coplanar and electrically isolated from each other (shown in fig 1A and 1B and in par 62 discloses spaced coplanar from each other). Regarding claim 3, Hull discloses wherein the inlet is disposed at the spatial point and the outlet is disposed at a periphery of the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes (shown in fig 1A and 1B shows outlet is disposed at a periphery of the electrodes). Regarding claim 4, Hull does not fully disclose wherein a number of electrodes of the first or second array of electrodes and/or an area of each electrode remains constant with each unit increase in radius from the spatial point up to a periphery of the first or the second array of electrodes. However, Eriksson discloses wherein a number of electrodes of the first or second array of electrodes and/or an area of each electrode remains constant with each unit increase in radius from the spatial point up to a periphery of the first or the second array of electrodes (pars 54 and 57 discloses would be constant as increase in radius based on needs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hull in view of Eriksson in order to determine characteristics of the fluid sample flowing through an electrode channel. Regarding claim 5, Hull does not fully disclose areas and/or numbers of the first or second array of electrodes change with each unit increase in radius from the spatial point to a periphery of the first or the second array of electrodes. However, Eriksson discloses areas and/or numbers of the first or second array of electrodes change with each unit increase in radius from the spatial point to a periphery of the first or the second array of electrodes (par 54 discloses electrodes can vary based on needs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hull in view of Eriksson in order to determine characteristics of the fluid sample flowing through an electrode channel. Regarding claim 6, Hull does not fully disclose wherein an increment in the number of electrodes in the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes is constant and an area of each of the electrodes increases with each unit increase in radius up to the periphery. However, Eriksson discloses wherein an increment in the number of electrodes in the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes is constant and an area of each of the electrodes increases with each unit increase in radius up to the periphery (par 54 discloses electrodes can vary based on needs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hull in view of Eriksson in order to determine characteristics of the fluid sample flowing through an electrode channel. Regarding claim 7, Hull does not fully disclose wherein the number of electrodes in the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes increases linearly or in multiples with each unit increase in radius up to the periphery. However, Eriksson discloses wherein the number of electrodes in the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes increases linearly or in multiples with each unit increase in radius up to the periphery (par 54 discloses electrodes can vary based on needs. Therefore, the electrodes can increase linearly in radius). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hull in view of Eriksson in order to determine characteristics of the fluid sample flowing through an electrode channel. Regarding claim 8, Hull does not fully disclose wherein the area of each of the electrodes in the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes decreases with each unit increase in radius up to the periphery. However, Eriksson discloses wherein the area of each of the electrodes in the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes decreases with each unit increase in radius up to the periphery (par 54 discloses electrodes can vary based on needs. Therefore, the electrodes can decrease linearly in radius). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hull in view of Eriksson in order to determine characteristics of the fluid sample flowing through an electrode channel . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull et al (USPGPub 20180333724) in view of Eriksson et al (USPGPub 20130093410) in further view of Malvern et al (USPGPub 20180231382) . Regarding claim 9, Hull in view of Eriksson discloses wherein the electrodes in each of the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes are completely or partially interdigitated with each unit increase in radius from the spatial point up to a periphery of the first or the second array of electrodes. However, Malvern discloses wherein the electrodes in each of the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes are completely or partially interdigitated with each unit increase in radius from the spatial point up to a periphery of the first or the second array of electrodes (abstract discloses electrodes are interdigital based around a hub). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hull in view of Eriksson in further view of Malvern in order to determine properties of the fluid) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest an electrode probing structure comprising: wherein the electrodes in each of the first array of electrodes and the second array of electrodes are arranged interdigitated with each unit increase in radius up to a periphery of the first or the second array of electrodes and a number of electrodes in each concentric segment doubles with each unit increase in radius in combination with the other limitations of the claim. Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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. /DOMINIC E HAWKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/759,768 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/759,768 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/759,768 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/759,768 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/759,768 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/759,768 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/759,768 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/759,768 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/759,768 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/759,768 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights