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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/15/2025 has been entered.
The Applicant has amended claim 18 and canceled claim 20 and added new claim 34. The pending claims are claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, 22-25, 32-34.
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 7, 10, 16, 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 claims 7, 10, 16, the phrase "optionally" 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). Additionally, with regard to the term "optionally" in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), in the instance where the list of potential alternatives can vary, there is ambiguity.
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, 20, 22-25, 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minteer et al., US 2009/0305113, in view of Liu et al., Advanced Materials.
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.
Liu et al., teaches one or more n-type polymers (abstract; 1st pg. col. 2) and one or more p-type polymers (abstract; 1st pg. col. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Liu et al., into the teachings of Minteer because Liu teaches “molecular doping utilized to modulate the carrier density in organic semiconductors to achieve high power factors…in the organic thermoelectrics community.” (pg. 2, col. 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Minteer et al., does not teach wherein the n-type polymer is P90.
Liu et al., teaches an n-type polymer and teaches P90, because Liu et al., teaches P(NDI-T2 (1st pg., colm. 2) which is also called N2200 (1st pg., colm. 2), which is another name for P90 polymer.
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, optionally, wherein the molar ratio of PEDOT to PEDOT-OH is 1.
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 20, Minteer et al., teaches wherein the electrolyte solution is at approximately pH 7.4. (pH 7.15) (0139).
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) contains the steps of oxidizing one or more metabolites (0126) in an electrolyte solution at a bioanode (0076) and reducing an oxidant at a biocathode (0008; 0036), wherein (a) the electrolyte solution is in electrical communication with the bioanode and the biocathode (0023; 0025); (b) the bioanode contains a conductive substrate (0036; 0096), and one or more enzymes which can react with the metabolites (0046-0048); (c) the biocathode contains a conductive substrate (0036; 0096) and wherein the bioanode is electrically connected to the biocathode (0023; 0088).
Liu et al., teaches one or more n-type polymers (abstract; pg. 1, col. 2 ) and one or more p-type polymers (abstract; pg. 1, col. 2 and pg. 2, col. 1).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate Liu into Minteer because Liu teaches that the n-doping of copolymers “causes relatively localized charges on the acceptor moiety in comparison to p-doping.”(pg. 2, col. 1).
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).
Regarding claim 34, Minteer et al., teaches the n-type polymer 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).
Liu et al., teaches P(NDI-T2 (1st pg., colm. 2) which is also called N2200 (1st pg., colm. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Liu into the teachings of Minteer because Liu teaches that “an improved atomic force microscopy (AFM) morphology with reduced phase separation was observed for the doped NDI-based copolymer with polar side chains.” (pg. 2, colm. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “Bourcet discloses a battery cell. One of ordinary skill in the art knows that battery cells and biofuel cells are completely different devices - they operate based on completely different principles,”. However, Bourcet is no longer a reference of record in this Office Action.
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