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. Applicant's amendments to the claims filed on 03-13-2024 have been received and entered. Claims 1-2 are pending in the instant application. Priority This application is US application filed on 05-09-2023 that claims priority from US provisional application N o 63/339,704 filed on 05/09/2022 and 63/350,239 filed on 06/08/2022 . This application is a CIP of US application 16/892,651 filed on 06/04/2020 which has US provisional application N o 62/857,022 filed on 06/04/2019 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05-10-2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CPR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-2 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. Claim 1 recites the phrase “ appropriate culture media ” contain ing term of degree “ appropriate ” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As per MPEP 2173.05(b), when a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. In the instant case, the phrase “appropriate culture media” recited in claim 1 is a subjective term that is not defined in the instant disclosure in the context of claim 1 in any limiting way. Also, there is no standard provided by the instant specification for the degree intended for the phrase “appropriate culture media” as claimed. Additionally, Claim 1 recites the phrase “ said one of a T cell culture and a dendritic cell culture ”. It appears the phrase is referring to the preceding “ one of a naive T cell culture or a dendritic cell culture ” . However, with the claim currently written, it is unclear if the T cell culture and a dendritic cell are required to be together in the culture medium or either of T cell culture or dendritic cell is enough to satisfy the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as “ one of a naive T cell culture or a dendritic cell culture ”. Moreover, it is unclear if the phrase “isolating antigen specific T cells from said one of a T cell culture” is referring to the “ naive T cell culture ” in previous step. It is unclear the if “ T cell culture ” and the “naive T cell culture” are the same. Also, c laim 1 recites the phrase “ after apoptosis of cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells occurs ”; however, there is no active step for apoptosis . It appears the term “ apoptosis ” implicitly requires the step of inducing apoptosis to happen as a result of preceding step of “treating cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells with cold atmospheric plasma” . However, i t is unclear if the previous step of “ treating cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells with cold atmospheric plasma ” would result in apoptosis . Claim 2 is included in the rejection because it directly depend s from base claim 1 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroit et al ( Pub. No.: US 2015/0241431 A1 , Pub. Date: Aug. 27, 2015 ) in view of Canady et al ( Pub. No.: US 2016/0138006 A1 , Pub. Date: May 19, 2016 ) ( Applicants’ own work ) and Hwang et al ( PNAS , May 27, 2003 , vol. 100 , no. 11 , doi : 10.1073 / pnas.1131852100 ) . Claim interpretation: It appears that the phrase “ apoptosis of cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells ” in claim 1 implicitly requires the step of inducing apoptosis to happen as a result of preceding step of “ treating cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells with cold atmospheric plasma ” . Since the specification of the claimed invention teaches FIG. 1 C to illustrate the mechanism for CAP ( cold atmospheric plasma ) induced cancer apoptotic cells ([0033], page 13), the term “ apoptosis ” in claim 1 is interpreted as a result after treating cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells with cold atmospheric plasma . In another word, the phrase “ treating cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells with cold atmospheric plasma ” is interpreted as “ to induce apoptosis of cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells ” . Regarding to claim 1 , Schroit et al teach “ new methods and compositions for isolating extracellular microvesicles such as exosomes , particularly disease -related and phosphatidylserine (PS)-positive exosomes, including tumor-derived exosomes , which methods are rapid, efficient, cost-effective and suitable for use with large volumes of biological fluids. ” ([0012], page 1), and “t umor exosomes could be used as immunotherapeutics for the treatment of cancer ” ([0084], page 6) (For the preamble). Schroit et al teach human tumor exosomes from tissue culture : “ Exosomes were isolated from tissue culture supernatants obtained from human tumor cells . Human ovarian carcinoma cells isolated from ascitic fluid were cultivated in the lower cell chamber of CELLine AD1000 flasks ” ([0195], page 16) ( For the claimed : “ isolating patient cancerous tumor primary cells; culturing isolated patient cancerous tumor primary cells in appropriate culture media ”). As mentioned above in the claim interpretation, the phrase “apoptosis of cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells” in claim 1 is interpreted as a result of treating cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells with cold atmospheric plasma to induce apoptosis of cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells. Although Schroit et al teach “ apoptosis-induced microvesicles or microparticles ” ([0078], page 6) , Schroit et al do not teach “ treating cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells with cold atmospheric plasma ” to result in induced apoptosis of cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells . Canady et al cure the deficiency. Canady et al teac h system and method for selective ablation of cancer cells with cold atmospheric plasma (title). Canady et al teac h effect of cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) treatments and induction of cell death and apoptosis: “ Two days after CAP treatments on Y-79 retinoblastoma cells and ARPE-19 normal cells, trypan blue dye exclusion test was carried out. The proportion of dead cells significantly increased at 1 and 2 minutes of CAP treatments in the tumor cells ” ([0083], page 7). Canady et al teac h also cold atmospheric plasma treatment for t he human ZR-75-1 Breast Cancer Her2+, Er+, Pr + epithelial cell (referred as ZR-75) ([0066] -[ 0067] in example 2 page 5) ( For the claimed : treating cultured patient cancerous tumor primary cells with cold atmospheric plasma ). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the rejected claims to combine the teachings of prior art to modify the method of Schroit et al by using cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) treatments for cancer cells as taught by Canady et al as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. Said modification amounting to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Canady et al provide explicit advantage of “ CAP alone could selectively trigger death inducing signals in the retinoblastoma cells in vitro and not in the normal healthy cells by accelerating the TRAIL-R1 expression and inducing apoptosis ” ([0093], page 8), and “ It follows that CAP mediated cell death may occur through a mechanism of autophagy, wherein the normal cells are protected and the tumor cells displays impaired mitochondria or dysfunction due to cross-talk with the apoptotic machinery leading to cell death ” ([0091], page 8) and Y-79 retinoblastoma cells in presence of CAP for 2 minutes show significant increase in apoptosis by inducing DNA nick than the normal ARPE-19 cells ([0039], page 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Canady et al were successful in induce apoptosis in cancer cell and not in the normal healthy cells with working examples and data. Schroit et al teach the collected conditioned media was cleared of cells, cell debris and large membrane vesicles by sequential centrifugations. That is, the cell conditioned media was first centrifuged at 500 g for 30 min (or 250 g for 10 min) and the supernatant was collected; that supernatant was then centrifuged at 12,000 g to 13,000 g for an additional 30 min. These steps provide a cleared or clarified supernatant ([0190], page 15) ( For the claimed : collecting m i cro - vesicles by differential centrifugation ) . Although Schroit et al teach that “immunizations with tumor exosomes have minimal side effects, are well tolerated, and elicit specific cytotoxic T cell responses ” ([0084], page 6), and “ Extracellular microvesicles such as exosomes exert a broad array of important physiological functions, e.g., ….. immunity by directing T cells towards immune activation ” ([0007], page 1), Schroit et al and Canady et al do not teach applying apoptotic cell-derived extracellular microvesicles to one of a naive T cell culture or a dendritic cell culture . Hwang et al cure the deficiency. Hwang et al teach “ direct stimulation of naive T cells by membrane vesicles from antigen-presenting cells ” (title) and “ T cell stimulation usually requires direct contact with viable antigen-presenting cells (APCs). However, we show here that small exosome-like membrane vesicles shed from APCs can be recognized by na i ve CD8 + T cells in the absence of viable APCs ” (Abstract). Hwang et al teach “ purified CD8 + T cells were incubated with varying concentrations of membrane vesicles in a final volume of 0.1 ml ” (Page 6671 , left column, 4 th para. ) ( For the claimed: applying microvesicles to one of a na i ve T cell culture or a dendritic cell culture ) Hwang et al teach “ activated T cells were collected after 60 h of culture and used in the JAM assay ” (Page 6671, left column last para.) ( For the claimed: isolating and storing said isolated antigen specific T cells ). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the rejected claims to combine the teachings of prior art to modify the method of the above references by stimulat ing naive T cells by membrane vesicles as taught by Hwang et al as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. Said modification amounting to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Hwang et al teach that “ exosome - like membrane vesicles shed by APCs can be directly immunogenic for purified na i ve CD81 cells. Both for normal APCs (mature DCs) and transfected Dros cells, membrane vesicles from APCs lead to strong proliferative responses and differentiation into effector cells. Such stimulation is highly ligand specific and requires three different receptor / ligand interactions, namely a combination of TCR / MHC / peptide, LFA-1 / ICAM-1, and CD28 / B7 interactions ” (Page 6674, right column, 2 nd para.). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Hwang et al were successful in direct stimulation of na i ve T cells by membrane vesicles with data and instructions. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroit et al ( Pub. No.: US 2015/0241431 A1 , Pub. Date: Aug. 27, 2015 ) in view of Canady et al ( Pub. No.: US 2016/0138006 A1 , Pub. Date: May 19, 2016 ) ( Applicants’ own work ) and Hwang et al ( PNAS , May 27, 2003 , vol. 100 , no. 11 , doi : 10.1073 / pnas.1131852100 ) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Moniruzzaman et al ( Sci Rep 7, 11659 (2017). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11877-8 ). The teachings of Schroit et al , Canady et al , and Hwang et al above are incorporated herein in their entirety. Canady et al teach “ flowing an inert gas through said electro s urgical hand piece to produce a cold plasma at a distal end of said electro s urgical hand piece; and applying said cold plasma to cancer cells for 1 to 3 minutes . The inert gas may comprise, for example, helium or argon. ”. However, the above references do not teach using 1 to 3 liters of He and at power ranging from 1 v to 120 v . Moniruzzaman et al cure the deficiency. Moniruzzaman et al teach “ Cold atmospheric plasmas (CAPs) have been proposed as a novel therapeutic method for its anti-cancer potential …. this study examined the effects of cold atmospheric helium plasma (He-CAP) in combination with hyperthermia (HT) 42 °C or radiation 5Gy” (Abstract), and “ Helium gas with a gas flow rate of 2 L/min was applied in this study for the generation of a plasma jet ” (Page 9, 3 rd para.), “ U937 cells were treated with He-CAP for 60 s, 120 s and 180 s , and exposed to HT at 42 °C for 20 min ” (Page 2, last para.). Moniruzzaman et al teach “ The properties of CAP can be modified depending on experimental conditions such as plasma setup, voltage applied , feeding gas, gas flow rate, distance from the plasma source and volume of solution, etc .” (Page 5, last para.) thereby indicating that voltage applied to CAP was recognized in the prior art to be a result-effective variable. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the voltage applied to CAP a plurality of times out of the course of routine optimization, in order to efficiently target cancer cells. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the rejected claims to combine the teachings of prior art to modify the method of the above references by adjusting the properties of cold atmospheric plasma treat ment for cancer cells as taught by Moniruzzaman et al as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. Said modification amounting to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Moniruzzaman et al stated that “ These findings emphasize the efficiency of combined treatment with HT, as synergistic effects were achieved when cancer cells were exposed at higher densities, irrelevant to p53 status. We have demonstrated the strategy for possible future clinical application of CAP with HT or radiation. This plasma- thermia or plasma-hyperthermia strategy would help to overcome the barrier regarding CAP clinical application, such as limited penetration of ROS, variance in CAP devices and its induced effects. ” (Bridging last paragraph on page 8 to page 9). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Moniruzzaman et al were successful in using c old atmospheric helium plasma to synergistic ally enhance in cancer cell death with hyperthermia and an additive enhancement with radiation with data and instructions. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KHOA NHAT TRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0201 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F (9-5) . 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 PETER PARAS can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4517 . 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. /KHOA NHAT TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1632 /PETER PARAS JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1632