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. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/US201/036624 filed on June 9, 2021, which claims benefit of 63/037,546 filed on 6/10/2020. The effective filing date of the current application is June 10, 2020. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed on October 7, 2024 complies with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. All references were considered. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-8 in the reply filed on October 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 24, 2025. Claims 1-8 are under examination. Claim Objections Claim s 1-8 are objected to because line numbers appear in the left margin. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non- structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “an irradiation unit configured to expose the cell to irradiation ” in claim 1 ; and “a bioreactor including the irradiation unit configured to irradiate contents of the bioreactor ” in claim 8 . Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. 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. Claims 1- 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 , the claim limitation “an irradiation unit configured to expose the cell to radiation” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Regarding claim 8 , the claim limitation “wherein the system includes a bioreactor including the irradiation unit configured to irradiate the contents of the bioreactor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The specification discloses that the irradiation unit can include an ultraviolet (UV) light source on page 7, line 3. However, the specification does not describe a structure that performs the function of exposing the cell to irradiation or irradiating the contents of the bioreactor as required by the claims. Therefore, the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claims 2- 6 and 8 are rejected for depending from rejected claim 1 but failing to remedy the indefiniteness therein. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1- 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Guo et al. ( “Light-driven fine chemical production in yeast biohybrids”, Science, 2018, Vol. 362, Issue 6416, pp.813-816) . Regarding claim 1 , the limitation “an irradiation unit configured to expose the cell to irradiation” is being interpreted under 112(f) as supporting the description in the specification of an irradiation unit can include an ultraviolet light source (specification p.7, line 3). Guo teaches a modular bioinorganic hybrid platform that consists of highly efficient light-harvesting indium phosphide nanoparticles and genetically engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae (abstract; Fig.1A). Guo teaches the S. cerevisiae Δ zwf1 -InP hybrids under illumination (5.6 mW cm-2) achieved the highest DHS-to-SA conversion rate (p.813, 3 rd column, middle paragraph). The presence of light is being interpreted as satisfying the limitation of “configured to expose the cell to irradiation”, because Guo mentions light-harvesting using solar-to-chemical production, and solar light comprises irradiating UV rays . Regarding claim 2 , Guo teaches Saccharomyces cerevisiae , which is a yeast cell (abstract). Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Jim é nez Villar et al. (WO 2010/066938 A1, published on June 17, 2010). As the original WO 2010/066938 A1 document is in Spanish, an English translation is relied upon for support. Regarding claim 1 , Jiménez Villar teaches a method comprising contacting a sample with nanoparticles and irradiating the nanoparticles attached to the cell surface with light of a wavelength between 350nm and 500nm (English translation p.1, claim 15). It is apparent to the Jim é nez Villar method that a system comprising a cell, a nanoparticle on a cell surface , and an irradiation unit configured to expose the cell to irradiation , is required in order to practice the step of irradiating the nanoparticles attached to the cell surface. Regarding claim s 7 and 8 , Jiménez Villar teaches irradiating the cells with a light of a wavelength between 350 nm and 500 nm (English translation p.1, last line) , and further teaches the light has a wavelength between 400 and 410 nm (English translation p.2, claim 21), which encompasses UV light wavelengths, and therefore teaches an irradiation unit includes an ultraviolet light source. 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. 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jim é nez Villar et al. (WO 2010/066938 A1, published on June 17, 2010) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (“ Hydrogen sulfide synthesis in native Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains during alcoholic fermentations ”, Food Microbiology, 2018, Vol.70, pp.206-213) . As the original WO 2010/066938 A1 document is in Spanish, an English translation is relied upon for support The teachings of Jiménez Villar et al. are discussed above. Regarding claim s 3 and 4 , Jiménez Villar teaches bacteria, including E. coli cells, but does not teach wherein a thiol synthesis pathway is deleted from the cell ( claim 3 ) or wherein the thiol synthesis pathway includes Met17 ( claim 4 ). However, Wang teaches diminishing the undesirable impact of hydrogen sulfide ( H 2 S ) on wine, and H 2 S synthesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (abstract). Wang teaches a negative relationship between the activity of Met17 and H 2 S formation (abstract). Wang further teaches analyzing H 2 S formation traits and gene expression characteristics of each isolate during alcoholic fermentations (p.207, 2 nd column last paragraph). Wang teaches that strain variation highlights the significance of studies that target native S. cerevisiae strains with industrial interest, and strains with low H 2 S production will facilitate H2S control in the fermentation process in wine-making (p.213, 1 st column last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Wang’s yeast cell ( where a thiol synthesis pathway containing Met17 is deleted ) for Jimenez Villar’s E. coli bacterial cell, because Wang teaches that controlling H 2 S formation in the fermentation process is desirable in wine-making (i.e. a chemical product). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to delete the thiol pathway to reduce the amount of H 2 S, and found it beneficial for diminishing the undesirable impact of H 2 S on wine. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jim é nez Villar et al. (WO 2010/066938 A1, published on June 17, 2010) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (“Augmented Biosynthesis of Cadmium Sulfide Nanoparticles by Genetically Engineered Escherichia coli ”, Biotechnology Progress, Sept/Oct 2009, Vol. 25, Issue 5, pp.1260-1266). The teachings of Jiménez Villar et al. are discussed above. Regarding claim s 5 and 6 , Jiménez Villar teaches silver-silica nanoparticles but does not teach wherein the nanoparticle includes cadmium ( claim 5 ) or cadmium sulf ide ( claim 6 ). However, Chen teaches augmented biosynthesis of cadmium sulfide nanoparticles by genetically engineered Escherichia coli (title). Chen teaches cadmium sulfide nanoparticles have captured enormous attention as a semiconductor material in diverse applications such as fluorescent labels and optoelectronic transistor components (p.1260, 2 nd column). Chen teaches that E. coli -based biosynthesis offers a more energy-efficient and eco-friendly method as opposed to chemical processes requiring high temperature and toxic solvents (abstract) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Chen’s cadmium sulf ide nanoparticles bound to the surface of E. coli for Jiménez Villar ’s silver-silica nanoparticles bound to E. coli to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use cadmium sulfide nanoparticles because Chen teaches that cadmium sulfide nanoparticles are important as a semiconductor material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it beneficial to produce increased amounts of cadmium sulfide nanoparticles in an eco - friendly and more energy efficient manner using E. coli . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DEEPA MISHRA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6464 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:30am - 3:30pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Louise W. Humphrey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5543 . 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. /LOUISE W HUMPHREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657 /DEEPA MISHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1657