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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 5-15, 22 and 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/25.
Applicant’s election of claims 16 and 19-21 in the reply filed on 11/11/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2007/0259216 to Logan (hereinafter referred to as “LOGAN”).
Regarding claim 16, LOGAN teaches a microbial electrochemical system (see generally LOGAN at Abstract and ¶10), comprising:
an anode and a cathode (see LOGAN at Fig. 7 depicting anode 707 and Figs. 1-4 of various systems into which the anode of Fig. 7 would be employed);
the anode comprising: (i) a conductive material (see LOGAN at Fig. 7 depicting conductive anode material 712 or rod 710); (ii) a bacteria (see LOGAN at ¶88); and (iii) a polymer, a catalyst, a mineral, or any combination thereof (see LOGAN at Fig. 7 depicting biodegradable substrate 707 and ¶44 teaching the biodegradable substrate being a synthetic polymer) wherein the bacteria and the polymer, catalyst, mineral or combination thereof is deposited on at least one surface of the anode (see LOGAN at ¶88 and ¶124 teaching the bacteria and the biodegradable polymer attached to the anode so as to be deposited as claimed).
Regarding claim 21, LOGAN teaches the microbial electrochemical system capable of operating at a current density in the range as claimed (see LOGAN at ¶85 and e.g. Fig. 1 which would be capable of providing power to the electrodes so as to supply a current density within the range as claimed).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over LOGAN.
Regarding claim 19, LOGAN teaches the electrochemical system capable of producing hydrogen (LOGAN at ¶14 and ¶32). Moreover, since LOGAN teaches the anode comprising the elements as set forth, i.e. the conductive material, bacteria and a polymer as claimed, it would be reasonably expected to also to be capable of providing a hydrogen production rate in the range as claimed. Furthermore, as set forth in LOGAN, the production of hydrogen is an electrochemical process that requires the bacteria and application of a voltage (see LOGAN at ¶34). It is additionally noted that LOGAN teaches the use of the same bacteria (see LOGAN at ¶35) and the electrochemical system of LOGAN would be capable of providing a range of voltages which would therefore allow for the adjustment of the resulting hydrogen evolution reaction rate.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the hydrogen production rate so as to be capable of producing hydrogen gas at a rate within the range as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, LOGAN teaches the microbial electrochemical system in which the microbial fuel cell could be useable in wastewater treatment (see LOGAN at ¶31). Moreover, since LOGAN teaches the anode comprising the elements as set forth, i.e. the conductive material, bacteria and a polymer as claimed, it would be reasonably expected to also to be capable of providing a COD removal in the range as claimed. Consequently, it would appear that the electrochemical system of LOGAN would be capable of providing for the COD removal in the range as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 2010/0270158 to Logan teaching a desalination device and method
US Pub. No. 2014/0255729 to Sheridan teaching a microbial fuel cell having an electrically conductive foam electrode
US Pub. No. 2020/0131650 to Kumar et al., teaching an engineered electrode for electrobiocatalysis and process to construct the same
US Pat. No. 9,160,024 to Moore et al., teaching a method of grafting of biomolecules onto microbial fuel cells
US Pat. No. 9,356,297 to Atanassov et al., teaching the facile fabrication of scalable, hierarchically structured polymer-carbon architectures for bioelectrodes
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