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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species I-2a (Claims 1-4, 10-12 and 14-18) in the reply filed on January 20, 2026, is acknowledged.
3. Claims 5-9 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 20, 2026.
Priority
4. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted January 22, 2026, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 10-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yadav et al. (US 2021/0280899 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Yadav et al. disclose an energy storage device, called a battery (100), comprising: at least one electrode, called a cathode compartment (1), configured such that electrochemical oxidation and reduction of one or more redox-active oxyanions occurs during charging and/or discharging of the energy storage device (paragraphs 0017, 0025).
The recitation, “configured such that electrochemical oxidation and reduction of one or more redox-active oxyanions occurs during charging and/or discharging of the energy storage device”, is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 2, Yadav et al. disclose wherein at least one of the one or more redox-active oxyanions comprise nitrate (NO ² ), nitrite (NO ² ), or sulfate (SO4² ) (paragraph 0025).
With regard to Claim 3, Yadav et al. disclose wherein the energy storage device is configured such that electrochemical conversions between nitrate and/or nitrite occur during charging and/or discharging of the energy storage device (paragraph 0025).
The recitation, “configured such that electrochemical conversions between nitrate, nitrite, and/or ammonia occur during charging and/or discharging of the energy storage device”, is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 4, Yadav et al. disclose wherein the electrode comprises an aqueous solution of lithium nitrate, lithium nitrite, or mixtures thereof (paragraph 0025).
With regard to Claim 10, Yadav et al. disclose wherein the electrode comprises a bifunctional air electrode configured to perform oxygen reduction reactions and oxygen evolution reactions (paragraph 0025).
The recitation, “configured to perform oxygen reduction reactions and oxygen evolution reactions”, is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 11, Yadav et al. disclose wherein the electrode comprises a dual electrode configuration comprising: an oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) electrode; and an oxygen evolution reaction (OER) electrode separate from the ORR electrode (paragraphs 0025-0027).
With regard to Claim 12, Yadav et al. disclose wherein the electrode is a cathode that comprises a cathode active material selected from manganese (II) oxide/manganese (II) hydroxide (paragraph 0025).
With regard to Claim 18, Yadav et al. disclose wherein the energy storage device is a flow battery (paragraph 0021).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US 2021/0280899 A1), as applied to Claims 1-4, 10-12 and 18 above, and in further view of Levine et al. (US 2009/0311559 A1).
With regard to Claims 14-17, Yadav et al. disclose the energy storage device in paragraph 8 above, but do not specifically disclose one or more biomolecules, one or more enzymes, and/or one or more microorganisms disposed within the energy storage device, wherein the one or more biomolecules, the one or more enzymes, and/or the one or more microorganisms aid in oxidation and/or reduction of the one or more redox-active oxyanions during charging and/or discharging of the energy storage device; wherein the one or more biomolecules, the one or more enzymes, and/or the one or more microorganisms disposed within the energy storage device are at least one microorganism; wherein the at least one microorganism is a bacteria; and, wherein the bacteria is a sulphate-reducing bacteria.
Levine et al. disclose an electrochemical power generation system including an anode, a cathode, an electrical conductor connecting the anode and the cathode, and a housing for containing an aqueous electrolyte medium in contact with at least a portion of the anode and the cathode (paragraph 0027). Levine et al. disclose the system further including a reactor configured to regenerate non-carbon constituents of a fossil fuel, such as pyrite, chemically (paragraph 0027). Levine et al. disclose wherein the reactor contains a regeneration medium including at least one species of microorganism, wherein the microorganism can be a sulfate reducing bacteria, a sulfur reducing bacteria, an iron reducing bacteria, or combinations thereof (paragraph 0027). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy storage device of Yadav et al. to include one or more biomolecules, one or more enzymes, and/or one or more microorganisms disposed within the energy storage device, wherein the one or more biomolecules, the one or more enzymes, and/or the one or more microorganisms aid in oxidation and/or reduction of the one or more redox-active oxyanions during charging and/or discharging of the energy storage device; wherein the one or more biomolecules, the one or more enzymes, and/or the one or more microorganisms disposed within the energy storage device are at least one microorganism; wherein the at least one microorganism is a bacteria; and, wherein the bacteria is a sulphate-reducing bacteria, because Levine et al. teach that these materials help electrochemical systems to generate electricity electrochemically without also generating unwanted byproducts associated with combustion, while providing relatively higher energy efficiency (paragraph 0008).
The recitation, “aid in oxidation and/or reduction of the one or more redox-active oxyanions during charging and/or discharging of the energy storage device”, is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725