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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1, 4-7, 11-15, 17-19 are amended. Claims 2, 3, 16, 20-24 are canceled. Claims 8-10, 25-28 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4-7, 11-15, 17-19 are under consideration.
Claim Objections
2. (previous objection, withdrawn) Claims 4-7, 11-15, 17-19 were objected to because of informalities.
Applicant contends: the claims have been amended.
In view of applicant’s amendments, the objection is withdrawn.
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.
3. (previous rejection, withdrawn as to claim 14; maintained as to claim 15; new, necessitated by amendment as to claims 1, 4-7, 11-15, 17-19) Claims 1, 4-7, 11-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35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.
See claims 1, 4-7, 11-15, 17-19 as submitted 9/17/2025.
Applicant contends: claims 14 and 15 are amended.
In view of applicant’s amendments, the previous rejection is withdrawn as to claim 14.
However, the amendment overcoming the rejection has not been made in claim 15 contrary to applicant’s indication of doing so (“claims 14 and 15 are now amended” (p. 7 of applicant’s response)), thus the rejection is maintained as to claim 15.
Further, as to claim 1, and the claims depending on it, the claim now recites “wherein (i) and (ii) are oppositely charged”. It is not clear if “prior to or during the combining (i) or (ii)(elected species) … are oppositely charged”, or subsequent to “exposure by plasma” … “(i) and (ii) are oppositely charged”. The claim language is not clear as to the charge states of substrate and bacteriophage and the timing.
Further, the specification describes “oppositely charged” in three recitations: 1) particles are activated and combined with oppositely charged particles (p. 28); 2) activating both particles and substrate, wherein particles are activated and the substrate is activated using an oppositely charted electrical discharge (p. 10; claim 39). Such support does not appear to be reflected in the instant claim language.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. (new, necessitated by amendment) Claims 1, 4-7, 11-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
See claims 1, 4-7, 11-15, 17-19 as submitted 9/17/2025.
See also the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above.
Claim 1 recites “wherein prior to or during the combining (i) or (ii) …. are activated by exposure to plasma, wherein (i) and (ii) are oppositely charged…”. The specification does not appear to provide support for wherein (i) and (ii) are oppositely charged … prior to or during the combining…”.
This is a new matter rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
5. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 1, 4-7, 11-13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mattey et al. (WO2007072049)(cited in applicant’s IDS as submitted 5/19/2021) as evidenced by TERC (“Understanding Common Units — Fact Sheet — Liters (L), milliliters (mL), and deciliters (dL),” found at https://sfa.terc.edu/materials/pdfs/common_units.pdf (2013); previously cited).
Applicant contends: Mattey et al. does not disclose a situation where the substrate (particles) and bacteriophage are oppositely charged; Mattey et al. fails to teach all of the elements of amended claim 1; Mattey et al. is silent regarding droplets; a volume cannot be described as a droplet.
In view of applicant’s amendments, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 14, 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattey et al. as evidenced by TERC as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 11-13 above, and further in view of Chadwick et al. (WO2012175749A1)(cited in applicant’s IDS submitted 5/19/2021).
Applicant contends: neither Mattey et al. nor Chadwich et al. disclose wherein the substrate and bacteriophage are oppositely charged.
In view of the withdrawal of the rejection over Mattey et al. as evidenced by TERC on which the instant rejection depends, the instant rejection is also withdrawn.
7. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 17-19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattey et al. as evidenced by TERC as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 11-13 above, and further in view of Madsen et al. (‘Airborne MRSA and Total Staphylococcus aureus as Associated With Particles of Different Sizes on Pig Farms,” Annals of Work Exposures and Health, Vol. 62, No. 8: 966-977 (2018); previously cite).
Applicant contends: the bacteria and phage are not equivalent.
In view of the withdrawal of the rejection over Mattey et al. as evidenced by TERC on which the instant rejection depends, the instant rejection is also withdrawn.
Conclusion
8. No claims are allowed.
9. 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 M FRANCO G SALVOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4468. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Janet Andres can be reached at 571-272-0867. 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.
/M FRANCO G SALVOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672
Prosecution Insights