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. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/14/2026 has been entered.
2. Claims 2-3, 16, 20-24, 29-55 are canceled. Claims 8-10, 25-28 are withdrawn. Claim 15 is amended. Claims 1, 4-7, 11-15, 17-19 are under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 1, 4-7, 11-15, 17-19 were rejected under 35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.
Applicant contends: (i) page 10, lines 27-31 and (ii) page 13, lines 18-21 provide support for claim 1.
Upon further consideration, applicant’s arguments are considered and found persuasive, and the rejection is withdrawn.
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.
4. (previous rejection, maintained) 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 3/16/2026.
Applicant contends: claim 15 is amended; the objections have been addressed.
Applicant’s arguments are considered and found persuasive as to claim 15, but unpersuasive as to claim 1.
See the rejection as recited in the previous Office Action. To reiterate as to claim 1 and the claims depending on it, the claim 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.
Response to Arguments
Turning to applicant’s arguments, as indicated above, 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. It is noted claim 1 has not been amended.
The claim also reads upon “wherein prior to or during the combining (i) … (is) activated by exposure to plasma, wherein (i) and (ii) are oppositely charged” as well as “wherein prior to or during the combining (ii) … (is) activated by exposure to plasma, wherein (i) and (ii) are oppositely charged”. It is not clear if one or the other was charged by exposure to plasma, and if the other was already oppositely charged to begin with or not. The claim language is not clear as to the charge states of substrate and bacteriophage and the timing. Further, the claim is not clear as to what results from exposure to plasma.
Further, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The rejection is maintained for reasons of record.
Conclusion
5. No claims are allowed.
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, Thomas Visone can be reached at 571-270-0684. 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