DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 2. 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 – (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. 3. Claim s 1 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. ( Nano Letters, 22, 2, pp. 860-867, 2021 ) . Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches a system (see drawing below) comprising: a substrate; a plurality of electrodes distributed on the substrate (electrodes, see drawing above) ; and a power source (voltage source, see drawing above) configured to provide power to the plurality of electrodes (voltage source is connected to contact pads having nanowedge -tipped electrodes, see drawing above) , such that the plurality of electrodes produce an electric field on at least a portion of the substrate sufficient to achieve an antimicrobial or antifouling result (“Rapid bacteria inactivation occurs at the nanowedge tips where the electric field is enhanced due to the lightning-rod effect”, abstract) . Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches a plurality of nanowedges (tip of electrode, see drawing above) distributed between the plurality of electrodes (each nanowedge is between one electrode and another opposing electrode, see drawing above) , each of the plurality of nanowedges having an aspect ratio between 10 and 1,000,000 (p.3, last paragraph: “the nanowedges with 200 nm width (Figure 2c,e) and 8 μm length (Figure 2d,f), which is an aspect ratio of 40) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 4 . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 5 . Claims 1 , 3, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. ( Nano Letters, 22, 2 , pp. 860-867, 2021 ) and further in view of Zhou et al. ( Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 14, 78, pp. 1-12 , 2020 ) . Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a system for microorganism and/or biofilm inactivation ( LEEFT device having nanowedge -decorated electrodes, figure of abstract) , the system comprising: an antimicrobial surface ( upward-facing surface , see drawing above) , the antimicrobial surface comprising a plurality of electrodes arranged in a predetermined pattern (electrodes, see drawing above) , the plurality of electrodes configured to generate an electric field capable of inactivating microorganisms (“Rapid bacteria inactivation occurs at the nanowedge tips where the electric field is enhanced due to the lightning-rod effect”, abstract) ; and an external power source (voltage source, see figure above) configured to supply electrical power to the plurality of electrodes to at least in part induce the electric field via the plurality of electrodes (voltage source is connected to contact pads having nanowedge -tipped electrodes, see drawing above) . Wang fails to teach an insulative material coating at least a portion of each of the plurality of electrodes . Zhou mentions that LEEFT devices having nanowire -tipped electrodes for disinfection (Fig. 3 a-m) known in the art utilize a dielectric septum placed in between two adjacent electrodes in order to “prevent short circuiting” (p.4, 2 nd to last paragraph). Wang and Zhou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of LEEFT devices having nanowire-tipped electrodes for disinfection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrodes of the LEEFT device of Wang by incorporating a dielectric placed in between two adjacent electrodes in order to “prevent short circuiting” ( Zhou , p.4, 2 nd to last paragraph). Regarding claim 3, modified Wang teaches wherein the antimicrobial surface further comprises one or more contact pads affixed to the plurality of electrodes (contact pads, see drawing in claim 1 rejection above) , the one or more contact pads configured to be electrically connected to the external power source (voltage source is connected to conductive contact pads that are attached to electrodes, see drawing above) . Regarding claim 6, modified Wang teaches wherein the electric field generated by the plurality of electrodes is at least 1 kilovolt per centimeter ( Fig. 3c). Regarding claim 7, modified Wang teaches one or more nanowedges distributed between the plurality of electrodes (see drawing below) , each of the one or more nanowedges having a predetermined horizontal or vertical spacing interval, with respect to each other (each nanowedge is separated at a specific distance, including vertical and horizontally, see drawing above) . Regarding claim 8, modified Wang teaches wherein the one or more nanowedges are affixed to the plurality of electrodes (each nanowedge is attached to one electrode, see drawing above) , each of the one or more nanowedges having the predetermined horizontal or vertical spacing interval, with respect to each other (each nanowedge is separated at a specific distance, including vertical and horizontally, see drawing above) . Regarding claim 9, modified Wang teaches wherein the insulative material (dielectric septum, Zhou ) is configured to electrically protect the plurality of electrodes against short circuiting ( Zhou , p.4, 2 nd to last paragraph, for the same modification purpose as stated in claim 1 rejection above). 6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. ( Nano Letters, 22, 2, pp. 860-867, 2021 ) , further in view of Zhou et al. ( Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 14, 78, pp. 1-12 , 2020 ) , as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yeung et al. ( US 20170029300 A1 ) . Regarding claim 2, modified Wang teaches an antimicrobial surface ( upward facing surface, see claim 1 rejection drawing above) having a base/substrate that the electrodes are placed on (see claim 1 rejection drawing above), but fails to teach wherein the antimicrobial surface is flexible and configured to be affixed to flat and curved surfaces. Yeung teaches a pulsed-electric field generating electroporation device for the inactivation of microorganisms (Fig. 5 and [0016] ), where the electrodes ( electrode pattern B, Fig. 5) are “printed on a flexible substrate” ([0160]) in order to be applicable to a curved surface such as a water purification system (Fig. 23). Modified Wang and Yeung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of printed electrodes on substrates for the electroporation and deactivation of cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate of Wang by incorporating a flexible feature to the substrate in order to be applicable to a curved surface such as a water purification system (Yeung, Fig. 23). 7. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. ( Nano Letters, 22, 2, pp. 860-867, 2021 ), further in view of Zhou et al. ( Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 14, 78, pp. 1-12 , 2020 ) , as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Pudasaini , S. "Microfluidics Based Electroporation for Inactivation of Microorganisms." Nanyang Technological University , (January 19, 2020) pp. 1-163 . Regarding claim 4, modified Wang teaches wherein each of the plurality of electrodes are separated by a horizontal spacing interval of at least 10 nm (5 um, see claim 1 rejection drawing above), but fails to teach wherein the predetermined pattern of the plurality of electrodes is an interdigitated pattern . Pudasaini mentions that coplanar-electrode electroporation devices on microchips known in the art tended to show a fast decay of the electric field strength away from the electrodes (decreasing electroporation efficiency), but mentions that an interdigitated electrode structure resolved this issue ( p.52, 2 nd paragraph). Modified Wang and Pudasaini are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of microchip assemblies having electrodes for the electroporation of cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode array of modified Wang by incorporating an interdigitated pattern of the electrodes as taught by Pudasaini in order to minimize the fast decay of the electrical field strength when the distance from the electrode increased ( Pudasaini , p.52, 2 nd paragraph). Regarding claim 5, modified Wang teaches wherein each of the contact pads are separated by a vertical spacing interval of at least 10μm (50 μm , Fig. 1a), but fails to teach wherein the predetermined pattern of the plurality of electrodes is an interdigitated pattern. Pudasaini mentions that coplanar-electrode electroporation devices on microchips known in the art tended to show a fast decay of the electric field strength away from the electrodes (decreasing electroporation efficiency), but mentions that an interdigitated electrode structure resolved this issue (p.52, 2 nd paragraph). Modified Wang and Pudasaini are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of microchip assemblies having electrodes for the electroporation of cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode array of modified Wang by incorporating an interdigitated pattern of the electrodes as taught by Pudasaini in order to minimize the fast decay of the electrical field strength when the distance from the electrode increased ( Pudasaini , p.52, 2 nd paragraph). 8 . Claims 10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. ( Nano Letters, 22, 2, pp. 860-867, 2021 ), further in view of Zhou et al. ( Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 14, 78, pp. 1-12 , 2020 ), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pudasaini , S. "Microfluidics Based Electroporation for Inactivation of Microorganisms." Nanyang Technological University , (January 19, 2020) pp. 1-163 . Regarding claim 10, modified Wang teaches an insulative material covering at least a portion of the electrodes (see claim 1 rejection above), but is silent to the material makeup of the dielectric septum/insulative material, much less the material being a polymer or a metal oxide. Pudasaini teaches an electroporation device with electrodes utilizes silica microbeads which are electrically insulative in order to enhance local electric field strength even at low applied voltages yet simultaneously able to electroporate bacteria (p.92, last paragraph and Fig. 5.1). Modified Wang and Pudasaini are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of microchip devices for the electroporation and deactivation of cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dielectric septum (i.e., insulative material) of modified Wang by incorporating silica as the material composition of said insulative material in order to enhance local electric field strength even at low applied voltages yet simultaneously able to electroporate bacteria ( Pudasaini , p.92, last paragraph and Fig. 5.1). Regarding claim 14, modified Wang teaches a power source (voltage source, see claim 1 rejection drawing above) to provide the plurality of electrodes to induce the electrical field (abstract) , but fails to teach wherein the external power source is further configured to provide direct current electrical power. Pudasaini teaches a pDEP (positive dielectrophoresis) microchip device for the electroporation and subsequent deactivation of bacterial pathogens (p.31), where “300 V DC pulses were used for electroporating cells” , p.32, 1 st paragraph) . Modified Wang and Pudasaini are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of microchip devices for the electroporation and deactivation of cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the voltage source of modified Wang by incorporating a pulsed DC voltage source as taught by Pudasaini in order to electroporate and deactivate bacterial pathogens ( Pudasaini , p.31) via generation of an electric field ( Wang , abstract). Regarding claim 15, modified Wang in view of Pudasaini teaches wherein the external power source is configured to provide DC electrical power with a voltage range between 1-500 volts ( Pudasaini , voltage of 300 V, Fig. 1) , for the same modification purpose as stated in claim 14 rejection above . Regarding claim 16, modified Wang in view of Pudasaini teaches wherein the external power source is configured to provide DC electrical power periodically in alternating polarities ( Pudasaini , p.32, 1 st paragraph, where pulsed DC voltage means the voltage fluctuates between positive and negative values (i.e., polarities) , where Wang similarly teaches a pulsed applied voltage of 18V in Fig. 1 ) , for the same modification purpose as stated in claim 15 rejection above. Regarding claim 17, modified Wang teaches wherein the external power source (voltage source, Wang ) is configured to provide DC electrical power ( Pudasaini , p.32, 1 st paragraph) with one or more predetermined pulse widths ( Wang teaches 500,000 electrical pulses at 18 V with 2 μs pulse width and 100 μs period , p.2 3 rd paragraph) . 9 . Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. ( Nano Letters, 22, 2, pp. 860-867, 2021 ), further in view of Zhou et al. ( Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 14, 78, pp. 1-12 , 2020 ), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wang et al. ( US 20090000948 A1 ) (hereinafter Wang ‘948) . Regarding claim 11, modified Wang teaches a power source (voltage source, see claim 1 rejection drawing above) to provide the plurality of electrodes to induce the electrical field (abstract), but fails to teach wherein the external power source is further configured to provide alternating current electrical power. It is important to note that Wang mentions that a dielectrophoretic force is induced by the non-uniform electrical field generated by the nanowedges , pushing cells to said nanowedges (p.4, 1 st paragraph). Wang ‘948 teaches a microchip-based cell electroporation device (abstract) utilizing dielectrophoresis to localize the cells and cause increased electroporation efficiency ([0011]), where “ an AC voltage wave, such as a sine wave, is applied across electrodes to produce an alternating electric field ” ([0021]). Modified Wang and Wang ‘948 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of microchip devices utilizing dielectrophoresis for cell localization and electroporation of cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the voltage source of modified Wang by incorporating an AC voltage source to localize the cells and subsequently increase electroporation efficiency (Wang ‘948 , [0011] and [0021]) via generation of an electric field ( Wang ‘948 , abstract). Regarding claim 12, modified Wang teaches applied voltages being from “0.5 to about 10 V” ( Wang ‘948, [0041]). Consequently, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an AC voltage of 10 volts as taught by Wang, yielding the predictable result of generating a dielectrophoretic electric field (Wang ‘948 , [0041]), thus reading on the claim limitation of “1-500 volts”. Regarding the limitation of “ a corresponding frequency range of 10 -3 -10 9 Hertz ”, Wang ‘948 further mentions that t he specific voltage, frequency, and duration of the sine wave depends on the specific cell types ” ([0021]). Therefore, in view of the modified Wang combination, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed frequency range of 10 -3 -10 9 Hertz through routine optimization by adjusting the frequency of the AC voltage based on specific cell types, yielding the predictable result of generating a dielectrophoretic electric field. Regarding claim 13, modified Wang teaches wherein the external power source ( Wang , voltage source, see claim 1 rejection drawing above) is configured to provide AC electrical power (Wang ‘948 , [0021]) with a sinusoidal waveform (Wang ‘948 , “sine wave”, [0021]), for the same modification purpose as stated in claim 12 rejection above. 1 0 . Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. ( Nano Letters, 22, 2, pp. 860-867, 2021 ) , as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Pudasaini (cited in PTO-892 form) . Regarding claim 20 , Wang teaches a plurality of electrodes (see claim 18 rejection drawing above), but fails to teach wherein the plurality of electrodes are interdigitated. Pudasaini mentions that coplanar-electrode electroporation devices on microchips known in the art tended to show a fast decay of the electric field strength away from the electrodes (decreasing electroporation efficiency), but mentions that an interdigitated electrode structure resolved this issue (p.52, 2 nd paragraph). Wang and Pudasaini are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of microchip assemblies having electrodes for the electroporation of cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode array of Wang by incorporating an interdigitated pattern of the electrodes as taught by Pudasaini in order to minimize the fast decay of the electrical field strength when the distance from the electrode increased ( Pudasaini , p.52, 2 nd paragraph). Conclusion 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Aham Lee whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5622 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maris R. Kessel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7698 . 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. /Aham Lee/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758 /MARIS R KESSEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758