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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on February 11, 2026 was received. Claims 29 and 37 were amended, claim 38 was cancelled and claim 40 was newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued January 8, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jorgensen (US 2004/0086433) on claims 29-30, 33 and 37 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claims 29 and 37 to include subject matter from now cancelled claim 38.
Claims 29, 33, 37 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nemoto (US 2015/0077492).
Regarding claim 29: Nemoto discloses a plasma treatment apparatus (10) which includes a moving surface formed of a dielectric (12) conveyor belt, as well as a discharge device formed as a discharge electrode (11) paired with a counter electrode (14), each arranged on opposite sides of the plane formed by the dielectric (12) conveyor, where the treatment target (20) is moved by the dielectric (12) conveyor to be treated by the electrical discharge between the two electrodes (11, 14), such that the discharge electrode (11) generates an electrical discharge and the counter electrode (14) controls the electrical potential, and further where the purpose of the plasma treatment is to help an ink or liquid adhere to surface when applied by an ink-jet recording device (170) (par. 35-36, 41-43, 59, 62 figures 2 and 9).
While Nemoto does not explicitly disclose that the ink or liquid is a bacteriophage, the limitation “for treating an object by attaching bacteriophage thereto” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case, the apparatus of Nemoto is capable of using a bacteriophage as its ink or liquid applied.
Regarding claim 33: Nemoto shows that the dielectric (12) conveyor is located between the two electors (11, 14) (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 37: Nemoto discloses a plasma treatment apparatus (10) which includes a moving surface formed of a dielectric (12) conveyor belt, as well as a discharge device formed as a discharge electrode (11) paired with a counter electrode (14), each arranged on opposite sides of the plane formed by the dielectric (12) conveyor, where the treatment target (20) is moved by the dielectric (12) conveyor to be treated by the electrical discharge between the two electrodes (11, 14), such that the discharge electrode (11) generates an electrical discharge and the counter electrode (14) controls the electrical potential, and further where the purpose of the plasma treatment is to help an ink or liquid adhere to surface when applied by an ink-jet recording device (170) (par. 35-36, 41-43, 59, 62 figures 2 and 9).
While Nemoto does not explicitly disclose that the applied ink or liquid is a bacteriophage, the limitations “for carrying out a continuous method for attaching bacteriophage to an object comprising the steps of… contacting the object with the bacteriophage to be attached” and “for treating an object by attaching bacteriophage thereto” are deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case, the apparatus of Nemoto is capable of performing the same steps and using a bacteriophage as its ink or liquid applied.
Regarding claim 39: Nemoto shows that the discharge electrode (11) is located above the dielectric (12) conveyor and the counter-electrode (14) is located below the dielectric (12) conveyor (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 40: Nemoto discloses that the dielectric (12) is a conveyor platform such as a conveyor belt (par. 43, figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 29-31, 33, 37 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen in view of Nemoto.
Regarding claim 29: Jorgensen discloses a system for treating an object with an electrical discharge to make it more receptive to an ink or adhesive (par. 17) which includes a conveyor (30) which is a moving surface and a pair of electrodes (32, 34) forming an electrical discharge device, the electrodes (32, 34) positioned on opposite sides of each conveyor section in a plan view (par. 24, figure 3). Jorgensen teaches that the purpose of the system is to prepare an object surface for better adhesion to inks, adhesives or other liquids (par. 37) such that a means for contacting the object with the inks, adhesives or other liquids is inherently needed.
While Jorgensen does not explicitly disclose that the ink, adhesive or other liquid is a bacteriophage, the limitation “for treating an object by attaching bacteriophage thereto” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case, the system of Jorgensen is capable of applying a bacteriophage as its disclosed ink, adhesive or other liquid.
The limitations “for generating an electrical discharge” and “for controlling the electrical potential” are deemed to be statements with regard to the intended use of the apparatus similarly to the above. In the instant case, the electrodes can and do operate in the same manner, despite Jorgensen using different terminology- Jorgensen teaches two electrodes (32 and 34) set up to generate a discharge therebetween, and specifically notes that one of the electrodes can be supplied power while the other can be grounded, such that the one supplied power generates the discharge and the grounded one controls the potential of the space therebetween (par. 22), exactly as claimed.
Jorgensen discloses that the electrodes (32, 34) are placed on opposite sides of the workpiece and conveyor but within the same plane formed by the conveyor, such that neither is below the conveyor or on opposite sides of that plane (figure 6). However, Nemoto discloses a similar corona discharge plasma device in which one electrode (11) is provided above the conveyor (12) and a counter electrode (14) is provided below the conveyor (12), such that they are on opposite sides of a plane formed by the conveyor (12) (par. 41, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the electrodes of Jorgensen in the way done by Nemoto because Nemoto teaches that the arrangements and positions of the electrodes can be changed in a number of different ways (par. 41), using a known technique for a known purpose is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143), trying from a finite number of solutions (i.e. electrodes arranged horizontally opposed or vertically opposed) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E) and simple rearrangement of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 30: Jorgensen discloses that the conveyor (30) can take many different forms including rollers, which have indentations, or a plurality of flexible belts (50) which can also have indentations as seen in figure 3 (pars. 24-25).
Regarding claim 31: Jorgensen discloses that a number of different materials can be used for the conveyor (30) outside of urethane (pars. 24-25), but fails to explicitly disclose using a conductive material. However, Jorgensen does describe that a guide part (36) of the conveyor (30) can be made from a number of different materials such as a metal, which is conductive (par. 33). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a conductive metal for the conveyor similarly to how the guide (36) can be metal because Jorgensen teaches that just like the conveyor the guide can be made from any type of material and remain functionally equivalent (par. 24-25, 30) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claim 33: Jorgensen and Nemoto et al. teach the above combination in which one electrode is provided above the conveyor and one below such that the conveyor is between the two electrodes (see Nemoto et al. figure 2).
Regarding claim 37: Jorgensen discloses a system for treating an object with an electrical discharge to make it more receptive to an ink or adhesive (par. 17) which includes a conveyor (30) which is a moving surface and a pair of electrodes (32, 34) forming an electrical discharge device (par. 24, figure 3). Jorgensen teaches that the purpose of the system is to prepare an object surface for better adhesion to inks, adhesives or other liquids (par. 37) such that a means for contacting the object with the inks, adhesives or other liquids is inherently needed.
While Jorgensen does not explicitly disclose that the applied ink, liquid or adhesive is a bacteriophage, the limitations “for carrying out a continuous method for attaching bacteriophage to an object comprising the steps of… contacting the object with the bacteriophage to be attached” and “for treating an object by attaching bacteriophage thereto” are deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case, the system of Jorgensen is capable of performing the claimed method steps and applying a bacteriophage as its disclosed ink, adhesive or other liquid.
The limitations “for generating an electrical discharge” and “for controlling the electrical potential” are also deemed to be statements with regard to the intended use of the apparatus similarly to the above. In the instant case, the electrodes can and do operate in the same manner, despite Jorgensen using different terminology- Jorgensen teaches two electrodes (32 and 34) set up to generate a discharge therebetween, and specifically notes that one of the electrodes can be supplied power while the other can be grounded, such that the one supplied power generates the discharge and the grounded one controls the potential of the space therebetween (par. 22), exactly as claimed.
Jorgensen discloses that the electrodes (32, 34) are placed on opposite sides of the workpiece and conveyor but within the same plane formed by the conveyor, such that neither is below the conveyor or on opposite sides of that plane (figure 6). However, Nemoto discloses a similar corona discharge plasma device in which one electrode (11) is provided above the conveyor (12) and a counter electrode (14) is provided below the conveyor (12), such that they are on opposite sides of a plane formed by the conveyor (12) (par. 41, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the electrodes of Jorgensen in the way done by Nemoto because Nemoto teaches that the arrangements and positions of the electrodes can be changed in a number of different ways (par. 41), using a known technique for a known purpose is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143), trying from a finite number of solutions (i.e. electrodes arranged horizontally opposed or vertically opposed) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E) and simple rearrangement of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 39: Jorgensen and Nemoto et al. teach the above combination in which one electrode is provided above the conveyor and one below (see Nemoto et al. figure 2).
Regarding claim 40: Jorgensen discloses the above conveyor (30) which has the form of a platform such that it can be considered a conveyor platform (par. 24, figures 3-6).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen and Nemoto as applied to claims 29-31, 33, 37 and 39-40 above and further in view of Vioel et al. (WO 2007/124921).
Regarding claim 32: Jorgensen teaches in the above modification that the conveyor can be conductive, but fails to explicitly disclose that it is electrically grounded. However, Vioel et al. discloses a similar plasma treatment system in which the conveyor belt (13) is connected to ground (6) (page 9, figures 2-4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically ground the conveyor of Jorgensen as done in Vioel et al. because Vioel et al. teaches that this enhances the safety of the apparatus (page 8, top line).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Jorgensen cannot be modified to have the electrodes above and below the conveyor because that would remove one of the main benefits of the apparatus being able to treat many sizes of article without operator adjustment.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments appear to mischaracterize at least the benefits of Jorgensen. The apparatus of Jorgensen does indeed have the benefit of being able to treat objects of a variety of sizes, but this is not due to the placement of the electrodes being horizontally separated as Applicant is claiming. Rather, it is due to the specific construction of the conveyor and guide system which allows for flexibility and enhanced guiding of the objects, the electrode (34) being part of this guide system. Rearranging the apparatus to have various features such as the guide and electrodes above and below the objects would not change the benefit of how the guide system works, as it merely auto-adjusts to the size of the objects in a different dimension (vertical, rather than horizontal), and doesn’t change anything else about its operation. Therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, as the teaching of Nemoto to arrange the guide and electrodes above and below the objects rather than side to side from the objects makes no material difference in how the device of Jorgensen fundamentally operates.
Conclusion
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
4/13/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights