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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending:
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 19-21 are rejected.
Claims 14-18 have been withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pgs. 8-9 of Applicant’s Arguments, Applicant argues:
Claim 1, as currently amended, now recites, in part, "the value of the second external resistance Rext is between Rint/10 < Rext < 4 Rint/5, with Rint being the value of the internal resistance of said cell." This limitation recites a specific proportional relationship between the external resistance and the internal resistance of the microbial fuel cell.
Zhang does not teach or suggest this specific proportional range based on internal resistance. Zhang discloses that the resistance values of R1 and R2 are adjustable, and in the examples, Zhang sets the external resistance R1 of the nitrification desulfurization MFC to be equal to the internal resistance, and sets the external resistance R2 of the denitrification desulfurization MFC to be "the resistance corresponding to the limiting current." See Zhang, paragraph [0031]. Zhang's principle for setting resistance values is based on matching internal resistance for one MFC and using limiting current resistance for another MFC-not on establishing a specific proportional range of Rint/10 < Rext < 4Rint/5 relative to the internal resistance.
The Office's reliance on Ex Parte Masham is misplaced. Ex Parte Masham addresses situations where a prior art device is capable of performing a claimed function. However, the present claim does not merely recite an adjustable resistance that could be set to any value. Rather, amended claim 1 recites a specific structural configuration wherein the second external resistance is set within a defined proportional range relative to the internal resistance (Rint/10 < Rext < 4Rint/5). The mere fact that Zhang's resistors are "adjustable" does not teach or suggest that a person of ordinary skill in the art would adjust them to fall within this specific proportional range based on internal resistance. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Zhang or any other cited reference to establish this particular proportional relationship.
Furthermore, the technical purposes of Zhang and the present application are fundamentally different. Zhang's system is designed to optimize contaminant removal and power generation performance in a coupled nitrification-denitrification MFC system. See Zhang, paragraph [0023]. In contrast, the present application helps to achieve spatial segregation of fermentative microorganisms and electroactive microorganisms along the assembly to optimize biomass conversion to a reduced mediator. The specific resistance range of Rint/10 < Rext < 4Rint/5 is purposefully selected to favor electroactive microorganisms in the downstream microbial fuel cells, thereby maximizing the reduction of the mediator. Zhang provides no teaching or suggestion of using external resistance values within this specific proportional range to achieve microbial segregation.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as amended, is patentable over the cited references. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of rejection of claim 1 are respectfully requested.
This argument is moot because amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belleville (Low voltage water electrolysis: Decoupling hydrogen production using bioelectrochemical system, see NPL in IDS) in view of Zhang (CN 108793425).
Regarding claim 1, Belleville teaches a device (decoupling hydrogen production using bioelectrochemical system, see ABS) for converting biomass to a redox mediator in a reduced form, comprising: an assembly of several microbial fuel cells (MFCs cascade fed reactors, see pg. 14871) connected in series by a fluidic flow line (a cascade-fed MFC system by definition is a system of multiple MFC units connected in series), at least two microbial fuel cells each comprising:
- a first compartment comprising an anode (anode compartment, see pg. 14870), fermentative microorganisms (glucose fermentation is performed in the MFC system, see pg. 14871 therefore the MFC inherently has fermentative microorganisms in order for this reaction to take place in the MFC system) and electroactive microorganisms (these microorganisms are inherently present in MFC-DES systems as these microorganisms are essential for the core functioning of the MFC-DES system to convert chemical energy into electrical energy), and
- a second compartment comprising a cathode (cathode compartment, see pg. 14870) and a solution comprising the redox mediator (redox flow mediator, see ABS and pg. 14868), the first compartment and the second compartment being separated by a semi-permeable membrane (Nafion HP perfluorated membrane, see pg. 14870), and
- an external resistance connecting the cathode to the anode (see Fig. 1)…
With respect to the limitation, “wherein the first of the at least two microbial fuel cells and the second of the at least two microbial fuel cells are arranged following in a flow direction of a fluid in the flow line”, Belleville teaches cascade-fed MFC reactors which inherently implies upstream/downstream arrangement along a flow path.
With respect to the limitation, “the value of the second external resistance Rext is between Rint/10 < Rext < 4 Rint/5, with Rint being the value of the internal resistance of said cell”, Zhang does not explicitly teach the precise Rext value relative to Rint; however, Zhang further discloses that external resistance has been taken voluntary high and could be fitted to internal resistance to maximum power production; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rext in the MFC cascade system of Belleville by adjusting the Rext value, including a value in the range of Rint/10 < Rext < 4 Rint/5, because the Rext is a known result-effective variable that is optimizable relative to Rint for the benefit of maximizing power production (Belleville, see pg. 14873) thereby improving and optimizing the MFC system with a reasonable expectation success. “[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.).
Belleville does not teach wherein the assembly comprises a first external resistance connected to a first of the at least two microbial fuel cells and a second external resistance connected to a second of the at least two microbial fuel cells, the first and second external resistances being having distinct resistance values so as to favour, in one of said at least two microbial fuel cells, the fermentative microorganisms relative to the electroactive microorganisms and, in the other of said at least two microbial fuel cells, the electroactive microorganisms relative to the fermentative microorganisms.
In a related field of endeavor, Zhang teaches a nitration sulphur MFC and denitrification desulphurization MFC coupling system (see ABS) wherein the assembly comprises a first external resistance (resistor R1 4) connected to a first of the at least two microbial fuel cells and a second external resistance (resistor R2 12) connected to a second of the at least two microbial fuel cells, the first and second, external resistances being having distinct resistance values (see examples 1-4 which shows that R1 and R2 are set to distinct resistance values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the MFC-DES system of Belleville by providing a first external resistance connected to a first of the at least two microbial fuel cells and a second external resistance connected to a second of the at least two microbial fuel cells, the first and second external resistances being having distinct resistance values as disclosed by Zhang because it allows for a system to optimize the overall resistance in order to improve the contaminant removal and improve power generating performance (Zhang, see pg. 4).
With respect to the limitation “…so as to favour, in one of said at least two microbial fuel cells, the fermentative microorganisms relative to the electroactive microorganisms and, in the other of said at least two microbial fuel cells, the electroactive microorganisms relative to the fermentative microorganisms” is a desired result or function, the combination of Belleville and Zhang teaches all the structural limitations, therefore the combination of Belleville and Zhang is capable of achieving the desired result or function.
Regarding claims 2-3, Belleville and Zhang teach the device according to claim 1.
With respect to the limitation, “the first microbial fuel cell being located before the second microbial fuel cell in a flow direction of a fluid in the flow line”, Belleville teaches cascade-fed MFC reactors which inherently implies upstream/downstream arrangement along a flow path.
With respect to the limitations, “wherein the value of the first external resistance of the first microbial fuel cell of the assembly is less than the value of the second external resistance of the second microbial fuel cell of the same assembly” and “wherein a value of the external resistance between at least some of the microbial fuel cells of the assembly is decreasing in a flow direction of a fluid in the flow line”, Belleville does not teach the precise external resistance of the first microbial fuel cell or the second external resistance, it would have been would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second resistances in the MFC cascade system of Belleville because it is obvious to vary resistance values across the cascade system including decreasing values in the flow direction depending on operational goals (Belleville, see pg. 14874).
Regarding claim 6, Belleville and Zhang teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the mediator is buffered by an acid-base pair (Belleville, the anolyte pH must be maintained to high values (alkaline) to avoid an acidic reaction on HCF (II). In addition, NaH2PO4 buffer solution is employed and K2SO4 salt is added to increase ionic conductivity, see Materials and methods on pg. 14869, Column 1)…
Regarding claim 9, Belleville and Zhang teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the mediator has a redox potential in a range of +/- 20%, around a value of redox potential of the mediator under standard conditions at pH = 7 and at a temperature of 25°C (the redox mediator potential value of Belleville inherently falls within the claimed range because separators operate with a pH gradient in moderate conditions (1-7.2), experiments are performed at 25oC in a temperature-controlled enclosure and the pH in catholic side of electrolyzer could attain pH 7., see pgs. 14870 and 14874, See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987))…
Regarding claim 10, Belleville and Zhang teach the device according to claim 1, wherein at least one from among the fermentative microorganisms and the electroactive microorganisms comes from an effluent sample from a purification station (the source does not further limit the structure of the device; the device of Belleville is capable of receiving from any known source).
Regarding claim 11, Belleville and Zhang teach a system for converting biomass to dihydrogen comprising: - a device for converting biomass to a redox mediator in a reduced form, according to claim 1 (Belleville, decoupling hydrogen production using bioelectrochemical system, see ABS); - an electrolyser (Belleville, decoupled electrolyser, see ABS) configured (Belleville, decoupling water electrolysis using mediator, see ABS) to produce dihydrogen (Belleville, see H2 gas produced in electrolyser shown in Fig. 1) from the mediator in reduced form (Belleville, H2 gas in reduction equation (4) on pg. 14869).
Regarding claim 12, Belleville and Zhang teach the system according to claim 11, wherein the electrolyser is connected by a fluidic connecting line to the device (Belleville, bio-electrochmical system (BES), see Introduction on pg. 14867), the fluidic connecting line being configured to drive, by a first portion, the redox mediator from the device to the electrolyser and to drive by a second portion, the redox mediator from the electrolyser to the device (this is inherent characteristic of the BES of Belleville).
Regarding claim 19, Belleville and Zhang teach the system according to claim 11, wherein the mediator exhibits a redox potential in a range of +/- 20%, around a value of redox potential of the mediator under standard conditions at pH = 7 and at a temperature of 25°C (the redox mediator potential value of Belleville inherently falls within the claimed range because separators operate with a pH gradient in moderate conditions (1-7.2), experiments are performed at 25oC in a temperature-controlled enclosure and the pH in catholic side of electrolyzer could attain pH 7., see pgs. 14870 and 14874, See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987))…
Regarding claim 20, Belleville and Zhang teach the system according to claim 11.
The combination does not teach wherein the anode of the electrolyser is of an active surface at least equal to double an active surface of a cathode of the electrolyser.
However, Belleville discloses increasing performance by increasing anode surface area (Belleville, see C2 on pg. 14873), therefore it would have been obvious to modify the surface area of the anode of Belleville to be twice the surface area of the cathode because it would have been obvious to optimize the performance by increasing the anode surface area, including a surface area twice the surface area of the cathode, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belleville (Low voltage water electrolysis: Decoupling hydrogen production using bioelectrochemical system, see NPL in IDS) in view of Zhang (CN 108793425) and further in view of Ren (Electrochemical study of multi-electrode microbial fuel cells under fed-batch and continuous flow conditions, see NPL in IDS).
Regarding claim 4, Belleville and Zhang teach the device according to claim 1.
With respect to the limitation, “the value of the first external resistance Rext of the first microbial fuel cell of the first group is between 0.8 Rint < Rext < 1.5 Rint, with Rint the value of the internal resistance of said cell”, Zhang does not explicitly teach the precise Rext value relative to Rint; however, Zhang further discloses that external resistance has been taken voluntary high and could be fitted to internal resistance to maximum power production; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rext in the MFC cascade system of Belleville by adjusting the Rext value, including a value in the range of 0.8 Rint < Rext < 1.5 Rint, because the Rext is a known result-effective variable that is optimizable relative to Rint for the benefit of maximizing power production (Belleville, see pg. 14873) thereby improving and optimizing the MFC system with a reasonable expectation success. “[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.).
The combination does not teach does not teach wherein the assembly comprises a first group of microbial fuel cells comprising the first external resistance connected to the first microbial fuel cells and a second group of microbial fuel cells comprising the second external resistance connected to the second microbial fuel cells, said first group and second group following in a flow direction of a fluid in the flow line.
In a related field of endeavor, Ren teaches a microbial fuel cell (MFC device) (see ABS) comprising a first group of microbial fuel cells and a second group of microbial fuel cells following in a flow direction of a fluid in the flow line (the first and second cells are a group and the third and fourth cells are a group, see Fig. 1 on pg. 456; one MFC is connected downstream therefore the limitation “a flow direction of a fluid in the flow line” is met).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify the cascade MFC system of Belleville to include at least 4 MFCs as disclosed by Ren to provide a first group of MFCs and a second group of MFCs because it has a high COD removal efficiency.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belleville (Low voltage water electrolysis: Decoupling hydrogen production using bioelectrochemical system, see NPL in IDS) in view of Zhang (CN 108793425) and further in view of Song (CN 106745772).
Regarding claim 8, Belleville and Zhang teach the device according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach the device comprising several assemblies connected in parallel by the fluidic flow line.
In a related field of endeavor, Song teaches a microbiological fuel cell sewage treatment system for artificial wetland (see ABS) comprising several assemblies connected in parallel by the fluidic flow line (a microorganism fuel cell stack by way of parallel connection, see pg. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify MFC of Belleville by incorporating rows of the MFCs to be arranged in a parallel configuration as disclosed by Song because said configuration increases the output voltage, prevents short circuiting and designed to have a long power staying time (Song, see pg. 5).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belleville (Low voltage water electrolysis: Decoupling hydrogen production using bioelectrochemical system, see NPL in IDS) in view of Zhang (CN 108793425) and further in view of Honji (US 2008/0245739).
Regarding claim 13, Belleville and Zhang teach the system according to claim 11.
The combination does not teach wherein a deviation distance between an anode and a cathode of the electrolyser is greater than 2mm.
In a related field of endeavor, Honji teaches a treatment method (see ABS) wherein a deviation distance between an anode and a cathode of the electrolyser is greater than 2mm (the distance between the anode 9 and cathode 8 being 5 mm, see ¶88).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify the anode and cathode system of Belleville to wherein a deviation distance between an anode and a cathode greater than 2mm as disclosed Honji because it would have been obvious the distance between the anode and cathode, including a distance of > 2 mm, for the benefit of reduced risk of short-circuiting and preventing cross-contamination, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[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).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belleville (Low voltage water electrolysis: Decoupling hydrogen production using bioelectrochemical system, see NPL in IDS) in view of Zhang (CN 108793425) and further in view of O’Neil (Hydrogen Production with a Simple and Scalable Membraneless Electrolyzer, see NPL in 892).
Regarding claim 21, Belleville and Zhang teach the system according to claim 11.
The combination does not teach wherein the electrolyser is exempt of a semi-permeable membrane.
In a related field of endeavor, O’Neil teaches a hydrogen production system (see ABS) comprising an electrolyser is exempt of a semi-permeable membrane (membraneless electrolyzer, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to replace the electrolyser of Belleville with a membrane-less electrolyzer of O’Neil because it has the advantage of an electrolyzer that can function in neutral and alkaline electrolytes (O’Neil, see F3015).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights