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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/16/2026.
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.
Claims 4, 6, and 8 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as optional.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the biological macromolecules" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Claim 1 will be treated as requiring “attaching biological macromolecules to a substrate”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the step of" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a step of”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattey (US 20090053789) in view of Storey (US7250195).
Regarding Claim 1. Mattey teaches a method of covalently attaching a biological macromolecule to a substrate (abstract) comprising: (a) generating a plasma at a location separated from the substrate (Fig. 11, [0133], 67 region of corona generation); (b) activating the substrate by exposing the substrate to the plasma (Fig. 11, [0133], carried active species from the corona and merged with the bead aerosol); and (c) contacting the activated substrate with the biological macromolecule while the substrate is in an activated state ([0133], continued on to the phage solution).
Mattey does not explicitly teach wherein the biological macromolecule contacts the substrate under conditions of reduced pressure or vacuum; however, deposition of biomaterials under vacuum is known in the art (Storey, abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the deposition atmosphere of Mattey to include a vacuum atmosphere, as suggested by Storey, and for the benefit of controlling environmental contaminants because it is a known deposition atmosphere and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of Mattey with a vacuum environment as in Storey.
Regarding Claims 2-3. Mattey teaches moving the plasma by a fluid to expose the substrate thereto (air stream carried active species, [0133]).
Regarding Claim 4. Mattey teaches the biological macromolecule is a bacteriophage ([0119]).
Regarding Claim 5. Mattey teaches the exposing step is carried out within a chamber ([0120]).
Regarding Claims 6-7. Mattey teaches the biological macromolecules are attached on substantially all surfaces of the substrate and the substrate is a powder (bacteriophage coated beads [0128]).
Regarding Claim 8. Mattey teaches embodiments including locating the powder in a rotatable drum ([0094]).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilek (US 20160215111) in view of Mattey (US 20090053789) and Storey (US7250195).
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 5. Bilek teaches a method of covalently attaching a biological macromolecule to a substrate (binding of a peptide to a polymer substrate surface, abstract) comprising: (a) generating a plasma ([0061-0063]); (b) activating the substrate by exposing the substrate to the plasma ([0061-0063]); and (c) contacting the activated substrate with the biological macromolecule while the substrate is in an activated state ([0065]).
The combined references do not explicitly teach wherein the biological macromolecule contacts the substrate under conditions of reduced pressure or vacuum; however, deposition of biomaterials under vacuum is known in the art (Storey, abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the deposition atmosphere of the combined references to include a vacuum atmosphere, as suggested by Storey, and for the benefit of controlling environmental contaminants because it is a known deposition atmosphere and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of the combined references with a vacuum environment as in Storey.
Bilek is silent as to the location of the plasma generation in relation to the substrate surface; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine a suitable location. Mattey suggests plasma generation at a location separated from the substrate, moving the plasma by a fluid to expose the substrate to the plasma, and exposing the substrate in a chamber as discussed above. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Bilek to include a remote plasma generation and substrate activation, as suggested in Mattey, because it is a known method of providing a plasma activated surface for biological macromolecule attachment and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of Bilek with plasma generation and activation as suggested by Mattey.
Regarding Claims 6-7. Bilek teaches the substrate is a powder ([0044]). Mattey teaches the biological macromolecules are attached on substantially all surfaces of the substrate and the substrate is a powder.
Regarding Claim 8. Mattey teaches embodiments including locating the powder in a rotatable drum ([0094]).
Regarding Claim 9. Bilek teaches the substrate is a textile, paper, or medical device ([0044]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights