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 has amended claims 7, 10, 16, 32; and canceled claims 4, 8, 11, 13, 17, 19-21, 26-31.
The pending claims are claims 1-3. 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, 22-25 32-34.
The Applicant has overcome the 35 USC 112 Rejection via the amendment to claims 7,
10, 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, 22-25, 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minteer et al., US 2009/0305113, in view of Henrica et al., US 2010099010.
Regarding claim 1, Minteer et al., teaches a biofuel cell (abstract; 0021) comprising: a bioanode (0021-0022) which comprises (a) a conductive substrate (0033; 0036; 0095); and (c) one or more enzymes; and a biocathode which comprises (a) a conductive substrate; and wherein the bioanode is electrically connected to the biocathode (0023; 0094-0095).
Minteer et al., does not teach (b) one or more n-type polymers and one or more p-type polymers.
Henrica et al., teaches one or more n-type polymers (0005; 0012) and one or more p-type polymers (0005; 0012).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Henrica et al., into the teachings of Minteer because Henrica et al., teaches “Preferably, n-type or p-type doped Si or Ge is used as substrate, or a doped Si-related and/or Ge-related compound, like SiGe or SiGeC. It may be clear that also other suitable materials may be used as a substrate material.” (0012). Additonally, Henrica teaches a “three-dimensional oriented battery cell and/or biofuel cell”, (0007), therefore the battery cell and biofuel cell can be interchangeably in this embodiment.
Regarding claim 3, Minteer et al., teaches wherein: (a) the bioanode cell further comprises a coating (0181); and/or (b) the biocathode further comprises one or more enzymes (0021; 0024).
Regarding claim 5, Minteer et al., teaches wherein the one or more enzymes are selected from the group consisting of glucose oxidase (0056), alcohol dehydrogenase (0014-0018).
Regarding claim 6, Minteer et al., teaches, wherein the enzyme is glucose oxidase (0056-0057; 0157-0159).
Regarding claim 7, Minteer et al., does not teach wherein the p-type polymer is a mixture of PEDOT:PEDOT-OH.
However, although Minteer does not teach molar ratio of PEDOT to PEDOT-OH is 1,
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 9, Minteer et al., teaches wherein the biocathode is capable of reducing an oxidant in the presence of electrons to form water (abstract; 0023).
Regarding claim 10, Minteer et al., teaches wherein the oxidant is oxygen (0036; 0085).
Regarding claim 12, Minteer et al., teaches wherein the one or more enzymes are oxygen reductase, laccase (0036) or bilirubin oxidase (0036).
Regarding claim 14, Minteer et al., teaches wherein the metabolite is selected from the group consisting of glucose (0083), glucose-1 (0083), D-glucose (0083), L-glucose (0083), glucose-6-phosphate (0083).
Regarding claim 15, Minteer et al., teaches, wherein the metabolite is glucose (0083), glucose-1 (0083), D-glucose (0083), L-glucose (0083), or glucose-6-phosphate (0083).
Regarding claim 16, Minteer et al., teaches wherein the metabolite is glucose (0083).
Regarding claim 18, Minteer et al., teaches wherein: (a) the electrolyte solution is a buffer (0046; 0048), a biological fluid (0145), or a combination thereof; (b) the electrolyte solution is at a pH between 3 and 8.5 (pH 7.15) (0139); and (c) the reaction of the metabolite and the enzyme produces electrons which are transferred to the polymers of the bioanode (0009; 0021; 0094).
Regarding claim 22, Minteer et al., teaches further comprising a membrane (0046; 0048).
Regarding claim 23, Minteer et al., does not teach wherein the biofuel cell preserves at least 15%, at least 20%, at least 30%, at least 35%, at least 40%, or at least 45% of its original maximum power density (MPD) after at least 30 days, at least 35 days, at least 40 days, at least 45 days, or at least 50 days.
However, Minteer teaches maximum power density (0148; Tables 3 and 5;
0161) wherein the data obtained would include the percentage and the number of days included.
Regarding claim 24, Minteer et al., does not teach wherein the biofuel cell preserves at least 20%, at least 30%, at least 35%, at least 40%, at least 45%, at least 50%, at least 55%, at least 60%, at least 65%, or at least 70% of its original open circuit potential (OCP) after at least 30 days, at least 35 days, at least 40 days, at least 45 days, or at least 50 days.
However, Minteer teaches open circuit potential (0148-0149; 0161; Table 3) wherein the data obtained would include the percentage and the number of days included.
Regarding claim 25, Minteer et al., teaches wherein: (b) the biofuel cell (abstract; 0021) is in the form of a power source utilized for powering portable devices (0125) and wearable electronics (0124), implantable devices (0124), or (b)(c) the biofuel cell is utilized for powering implantable devices (0124); (d) the biofuel cell is in the form of utilized as an implanted device (0124).
Minteer does not teach (a) the power output of the biofuel cell (0149) is proportional to the metabolite concentration.
However, although Minteer does not teach power output of the biofuel cell is proportional to the metabolite concentration, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 32, Minteer et al., teaches method of generating electrical power (0023) using the biofuel cell of claim 1, comprising (i) contacting an electrolyte solution with the bioanode (0076) and biocathode (0008; 0036), such that the electrolyte is in electrical communication with the bioanode and biocathode (0023; 0025), wherein in step (i), one or more metabolite (0126) in electrolyte solution are oxidized at the bioanode and an oxidant is reduced at the biocathode (0023; 0088).
Regarding claim 33, Minteer et al., teaches further comprising an electrolyte solution (fluid fuel; 0076) which comprises one or more metabolite capable of reacting with the enzyme (0087), wherein the electrolyte solution is in electrical communication with the bioanode and the biocathode (0087; 0176).
Claim(s) 2 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minteer et al., US 2009/0305113, in view of Henrica et al., US 2010099010, in further view of Ford et al., US 2017/0200894.
Regarding claim 2, Minteer et al., does not teach wherein the n-type polymer is P90.
Ford et al., teaches an n-type polymer and teaches P90, because Ford et al., teaches P(NDI-T2 (00027; 0150) which is also called N2200 (0150), which is another name for P90 polymer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Ford into the teachings of modified Minteer because Ford teaches improvement of p-type OFET (Organic Field Effect Transistors) characteristics and device stability (0093).
Regarding claim 34, Minteer et al., teaches the n-type polymer (0005; 0012) comprises an electrolyte solution comprising one or more metabolite (0086-0087) capable of reacting with enzyme, wherein electrolyte is in electrical communication with the bioanode and biocathode (0086-0087).
Regarding claim 34, Minteer does not teach wherein the n-type polymer comprises P(NDI- T2).
Ford et al., teaches P(NDI-T2 (0150; 0203) which is also called N2200 (0027; 0150; 0203).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Ford into the teachings of modified Minteer because Ford teaches improvement of p-type OFET (Organic Field Effect Transistors) characteristics and device stability (0093).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “The combination of Minteer and Lin does not provide a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed subject matter.”
However, a new reference, Henrica et al., US 2010099010, has been included in the new rejection:
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, 22-25, 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minteer et al., US 2009/0305113, in view of Henrica et al., US 2010099010.
Additionally, the secondary reference, Liu et al., Advanced Materials, has been removed as the secondary reference.
Applicant argues that “Minteer does not disclose an n-type polymer on a bioanode and a p-type polymer on a biocathode but cites to Lin for making up for this deficiency.”
However, a new reference, Henrica et al., US 2010099010, provides an n-type polymer and a p-type polymer.
The Applicant submitted a Declaration to show that “The operating mechanisms of biofuel cells and battery cells differ significantly.”
However, Henrica teaches a “three-dimensional oriented battery cell and/or biofuel cell” (0007), therefore the battery cell and biofuel cell can be interchangeably in this embodiment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights