DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on 5/12/26:
claims 1, 5-16, 19-22 and 24-26 are presently pending with claims 1, 5-15, 22 and 24-26 being withdrawn
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
new grounds of rejection are presented herein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2020/0131650 to Kumar et al., (hereinafter referred to as “KUMAR”) in view of “Formation of Novel Hydrogel Bio-Anode by Immobilization of Biocatalyst in Alginate/Polyaniline/Titanium-Dioxide/Graphite Composites and its Electrical Performance” by Szollosi et al., Chemosphere 174, pages 58-65 (2017) (hereinafter referred to as “SZOLLOSI”).
Regarding claim 16, KUMAR teaches a microbial electrochemical system (see generally KUMAR at Abstract and ¶1 and ¶26 teaching the formation of a bioelectrode and its use in a bioelectrochemical system; see also KUMAR at ¶139-¶140 teaching the use of the bioelectrode as a bioanode for oxidation of organics in waste water, i.e. in an microbial electrochemical system), comprising:
an anode and a cathode (see KUMAR at ¶1 teaching the bioelectrode for use in a bioelectrochemical system, i.e. a cell with an anode and cathode; see also KUMAR at ¶139-¶140 teaching the use of the bioelectrode as a bioanode for oxidation of organics in waste water which would also include a cathode as claimed);
the anode (see KUMAR at ¶56) comprises a conductive anode material (see KUMAR at ¶59 a host of electrode materials that could be used); a bacteria (see KUMAR at ¶57-¶58 listing various bacteria), and a polymer (see KUMAR at ¶74 teaching various biofilm stabilizing agents including alginate, chitosan, and combinations thereof); and
wherein the bacteria and the polymer are deposited on at least one surface of the conductive anode material forming an outer layer (see KUMAR at ¶56 and ¶81 step (f) teaching the layering of the electroactive bacteria, i.e EAB, along with the biofilm stabilizing agents).
While KUMAR teaches the outer layer further comprising a conductive additive (see KUMAR at ¶81 step (h) teaching the applying of a immobilizing agent and conductive material; see also KUMAR at ¶61 teaching the conducting materials including various conductive polymers), KUMAR fails to explicitly teach the conductive additive being graphene, activated carbon, graphite, and combinations thereof.
However, SZOLLOSI teaches a bioanode also comprising alginate, polyaniline and a bacteria (see SZOLLOSI at Abstract and diagram of Fig. 1). Furthermore, SZOLLOSI teaches that the addition of graphite powder along with the conductive polymer polyaniline contributed to a large increase in the conductivity of the composite bioanode (see SZOLLOSI at Abstract and page 61, section 3.1 teaching the graphite powder having a significant effect on the conductivity and the combination of PANI and graphite resulting in a 105x increase in the conductivity without either the PANI or graphite).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the potential benefit of further increasing the conductivity of the biofilm of KUMAR by including the graphite powder as taught by SZOLLOSI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the graphite powder of SZOLLOSI in the bioelectrode of KUMAR as a means of further improving the electron transfer in the biofilm layer of the electrode.
Regarding claim 19, KUMAR as modified by SZOLLOSI teaches the microbial electrochemical system wherein the polymer comprises alginate and chitosan (see KUMAR at ¶74 teaching options of the biofilm stabilizing agent including alginate, chitosan, and combinations thereof).
Regarding claim 20, KUMAR as modified by SZOLLOSI teaches the microbial electrochemical system in which the microbial fuel cell could be useable in wastewater treatment (see KUMAR at ¶139). Moreover, since KUMAR as modified by SZOLLOSI teaches the anode comprising the elements as set forth, i.e. the anode material (see KUMAR at ¶59), conductive material (see teachings of KUMAR and SZOLLOSI as set forth above in the rejection of claim 16), bacteria (see KUMAR at ¶57-¶58) and polymers (see KUMAR at ¶74 teaching embodiments including chitosan, alginate and combinations thereof) as claimed, it would be reasonably expected to result in a bioelectrode capable of providing a COD removal and HER rate in the ranges as claimed. Additionally, the bioanode would also be capable of operating at a current density in the range as claimed since the current density is dependent upon the potential difference applied and so the electrode was necessarily be capable of having any voltage applied such that would allow for the claimed current densities.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR in view of SZOLLOSI as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of “Stimulated Electron Transfer Inside Electroactive Biofilm by Magnetite for Increased Performance Microbial Fuel Cell” by Liu et al., Appl. Energy 216, pages 382-388 (2018) (hereinafter referred to as “LIU”).
Regarding claim 21, while KUMAR in view of SZOLLOSI teaches the conductive anode material comprising any one of carbon paper, carbon cloth, carbon mesh, graphite plate, graphite rod, carbon foam and carbon brush (see KUMAR at ¶59 teaching the electrode made of materials including carbon cloth and graphite plate amongst others), KUMAR as modified by SZOLLOSI fails to explicitly teach the outer layer further comprising a mineral selected from the group as claimed.
However, LIU teaches a bioelectrode having a biofilm in which magnetite is used to dope the interior of the biofilm (see LIU at Abstract and Graphical Abstract Figure). Moreover, LIU teaches the interior-doped magnetite biofilm as acting to further enhance the electron transfer within the interior of the biofilm (see LIU at section 4 titled “Conclusions” on page 387). Additionally, LIU teaches the magnetite as enhancing several aspects of the electroactive biofilm (see LIU at section 3.5 on pages 386-387 teaching the magnetite as enriching the electroactive bacteria and stimulating more electron production, assists in the collection and transportation of electrons regardless of distance from the electrode surface, and also acts as a mediator to assist in the delivery of electrons to the electrode directly).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have included magnetite in the biofilm of the bioelectrode of KUMAR as modified by SZOLLOSI to improve the electron transfer efficiency and the bioelectricity production.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added magnetite, as taught by LIU, to the biofilm of the bioelectrode of KUMAR as modified by SZOLLOSI so as to provide for the bioelectrode having a further enhanced electron conductivity and bioelectricity production.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 and 19-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights