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 Objections Claim 25 is objected to due to its dependency upon a cancelled claim 18. Claim Interpretation For the purpose of examination based on the merits the dependency of claim 25 has been interpreted as being dependent upon claim 17. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 3, the claim recites a method “ of removing ammunition-related c ontaminants in a fluid ”, however it is unclear how or at which step the method of removing ammunition-related contaminants in a fluid has been accomplished. Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 3. 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. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Arizona (WO-2017136528-A1) in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Rittmann (US-7186340-B1) . Regarding claim 1, Arizona discloses a system for establishing a metal-biofilm for removing ammunition-related contaminants comprising: a gas-transfer membrane (Arizona p. 2 last par. “hollow fiber membrane”) ; a hydrogen-gas source (Arizona p. 3 par. 1 “gas tank having H 2 gas”) ; an inoculant comprising a biofilm-forming population of microorganisms (Arizona p. 2 last par.) ; a growth medium comprising at least one nitrate salt (Arizona p. 3 par. 2) , wherein the growth medium feeds biofilm-forming population of microorganisms to establish a biofilm anchored on the gas-transfer membrane (Arizona p. 3 par. 2) ; and a catalyst precursor medium comprising at least one soluble autocatalytic metal precursor (Arizona p. 17 last par. “Na 2 PdCl 4 ”) , wherein the catalyst precursor medium feeds the biofilm, and the biofilm converts the soluble autocatalytic metal precursor to autocatalytic metal nanoparticles, which are embedded in the biofilm matrices to produce a metal-biofilm that is anchored on the gas-transfer membrane (Arizona p. 2 “microorganisms can reduce” palladium nanoparticle palladium and p. 18 Results “nanoparticulate Pd(0) formation in the biotic MBfR” as well as Figs 1, 5) . Arizona does not explicitly disclose that the growth medium comprises both a nitrate salt and a perchlorate salt, nor does Arizona expressly describe inclusion of perchlorate as part of the growth medium for sustaining or enriching the biofilm. Arizona also does not disclose the catalyst precursor medium having a basic pH. To the contrary, Arizona’s Pd (II) reduction examples include conditions in which Pd reduction generates acidity (Arizona p. 18 equation 2) and describe acidic influent conditions (e.g., pH~3.8) prior to buffering (Arizona, Stage 1). Rittman n is directed to hydrogen-based membrane biofilm reactor (MBfR) systems and teaches that perchlorate is intentionally included in the aqueous medium to support biofilm growth and microbial selection. Rittman n explicitly discloses “ providing an aqueous system comprising hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria, a primary electron acceptor component and a p erchlorate component” (Rittmann claim 1). Rittma n n further teaches that the primary electron acceptor component is selected from oxygen and a nitrate anion (Rittmann claim 2) and where the nitrate anion can be influent to the system with a waste stream comprising the subject perchlorate component (Rittma n n col. 4 lines 25-26), demonstrating the co-presence of nitrate and perchlorate in the growth medium. Rittmann explains that perchlorate functions as “an electron acceptor for growth” (Rittma n n col. 2 par. 2) and is used to support a steady state accumulation of bacteria and enrich perchlorate -reducing biofilms on hydrogen-fed hollow-fiber membranes. Rittmann f urther teaches that biofilm-mediated reduction processes are optimized at circumneutral pH, which is maintained through buffering. Specifically, Rittma n n discloses the use of phosphate buffer systems to maintain pH around 7 during biofilm operation (e.g., Example 2a, using phosphate buffer at pH 7) to ensure stable microbial activity and effective reduction reactions. Rittma n n further teaches that pH control is a ro u tine operational parameter in MBfR systems and that buffering toward neutral or slightly basic conditions is desirable to maintain microbial function and catalytic activity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Arizona to include a perchlorate salt in the medium, as taught by Rittmann , because Rittmann establishes that perchlorate is a known and routinely used electron acceptor in hydrogen-based membrane biofilm reactors, commonly co-present with nitrate to support microbial growth, enrichment, and stable operation. Applying Rittmann’s teaching of perchlorate-containing growth media to the otherwise identical hydrogen-fed membrane biofilm system of Arizona represents a predictable use of a known alternative electron acceptor for its established function, yielding a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to operate the system of Arizona with the soluble autocatalytic metal precursor medium at a neutral or basic pH as taught by Rittman in order to maintain microbial activity and effective metal reduction. Arizona itself suggests the need for pH adjustment, as it explains that Pd(II) reduction produces acidity and that increased buffering capacity restores effective Pd reduction at steady state (Arizona, Stage 2) describing increased phosphate buffering to achieve a “circumneutral environment with full Pd(II) reduction”. Thus Arizona recognizes that Pd-biofilm systems benefit from buffering away from acidic conditions, even though it does not expressly label the resulting pH as “basic”. In view of Rittman’s explicit teaching that MBfR systems are routinely buffered to neutral pH for optimal operation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply such pH control to Arizona’s Pd-biofilm system, with a reasonable expectation of success. The claimed use of a catalyst precursor medium having a basic pH therefore represents a predictable variation of known MBfR operating conditions. Claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 3-17, 22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Arizona (WO-2017136528-A1) in view of Rittmann (US-7186340-B1) and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Bowman (WO-2008121373-A2) . Regarding claim 3, Arizona discloses a method of removing contaminants in a fluid comprising: providing an aqueous system (Arizona p. 3 last par.) , wherein the aqueous system comprises a gas-transfer membrane (Arizona p. 2 last par. “hollow fiber membrane”) and a hydrogen-gas source (Arizona p. 3 par. 1 “gas tank having H 2 gas”) ; and inoculating the gas-transfer membrane with an inoculant to establish a biofilm anchored to the gas-transfer membrane (Arizona p. 8 par. 1 ) ; providing the inoculated aqueous system with a growth medium comprising at least one nitrate salt (Arizona p. 3 par. 2) , wherein growth medium establishes a biofilm on the gas-transfer membrane (Arizona p. 3 par. 2) ; providing the aqueous system with a catalyst precursor medium comprising at least one soluble autocatalytic metal precursor (Arizona p. 17 last par. “Na 2 PdCl 4 ”) , wherein the catalyst precursor medium feeds the biofilm, and the biofilm converts the soluble autocatalytic metal precursor to autocatalytic metal nanoparticles, which are embedded in the biofilm matrices to produce a metal biofilm that is anchored on the gas-transfer membrane (Arizona p. 2 “microorganisms can reduce” palladium nanoparticle palladium and p. 18 Results “nanoparticulate Pd(0) formation in the biotic MBfR” as well as Figs 1, 5). Arizona does not explicitly disclose that the growth medium comprises both a nitrate salt and a perchlorate salt, nor does Arizona expressly describe inclusion of perchlorate as part of the growth medium for sustaining or enriching the biofilm. Arizona also does not disclose the catalyst precursor medium having a basic pH. To the contrary, Arizona’s Pd (II) reduction examples include conditions in which Pd reduction generates acidity (Arizona p. 18 equation 2) and describe acidic influent conditions (e.g., pH~3.8) prior to buffering (Arizona, Stage 1). Arizona also does not disclose providing to the metal-biofilm the fluid with ammunition-related contaminants, wherein the metal-biofilm reduces the ammunition-related contaminants. Rittmann is directed to hydrogen-based membrane biofilm reactor (MBfR) systems and teaches that perchlorate is intentionally included in the aqueous medium to support biofilm growth and microbial selection. Rittmann explicitly discloses “providing an aqueous system comprising hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria, a primary electron acceptor component and a perchlorate component” (Rittmann claim 1). Rittmann further teaches that the primary electron acceptor component is selected from oxygen and a nitrate anion (Rittmann claim 2) and where the nitrate anion can be influent to the system with a waste stream comprising the subject perchlorate component (Rittmann col. 4 lines 25-26), demonstrating the co-presence of nitrate and perchlorate in the growth medium. Rittmann explains that perchlorate functions as “an electron acceptor for growth” (Rittmann col. 2 par. 2) and is used to support a steady state accumulation of bacteria and enrich perchlorate-reducing biofilms on hydrogen-fed hollow-fiber membranes. Rittmann further teaches that biofilm-mediated reduction processes are optimized at circumneutral pH, which is maintained through buffering. Specifically, Rittmann discloses the use of phosphate buffer systems to maintain pH around 7 during biofilm operation (e.g., Example 2a, using phosphate buffer at pH 7) to ensure stable microbial activity and effective reduction reactions. Rittmann further teaches that pH control is a routine operational parameter in MBfR systems and that buffering toward neutral or slightly basic conditions is desirable to maintain microbial function and catalytic activity. Bowman discloses methods of removing contaminants using hydrogen-based membrane biofilm reactors, including treatment of trichloroethene (TCE). Bowman teaches providing influent water comprising “perchlorate and trichloroethene (TCE)” to a membrane biofilm reactor and operating the reactor to reduce TCE, including performing a chloride material balance calculation to account for the chloride derived from the reduced perchlorate and/or TCE. The instant specification explicitly identifies trichloroethene (TCE) as an ammunition-related contaminant (par. [0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrogen-based membrane biofilm of Arizona to include a perchlorate-containing growth medium and to operate the system under neutral or basic pH conditions, as taught by Rittmann, and to apply the resulting Pd-biofilm system to the treatment of ammunition-related contaminants as taught by Bowman. Rittmann establishes that perchlorate is a known and routinely used electron acceptor in hydrogen-based membrane biofilm reactors, often co-present with nitrate to support microbial growth, enrichment, and stable reactor operation, such that incorporation of perchlorate into the growth medium of Arizona would represent a predictable substitution of one known electron acceptor for another with an expected benefit. Rittmann further teaches buffering MBfR systems to neutral pH (e.g., using phosphate buffers) to maintain microbial activity and effective reduction reactions. Although Arizona does not expressly describe a “basic pH”, Arizona demonstrates that Pd(II) reduction generates acidity and that increasing buffering capacity restores effective Pd reduction, describing the use of increased phosphate buffering to achieve a “circumneutral environment with full Pd(II) reduction” (Arizona Stage 2). This disclosure evidences Arizona’s recognition that pH control away from acidic conditions is necessary for proper Pd-biofilm function, thereby motivating a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply known pH-buffering practices as taught by Rittmann. Bowman further teaches that bio-catalytic and biological reduction systems are applicable to groundwater contaminants including ammunition-related contaminants such as trichloroethene (TCE), which the instant application itself identifies as an ammunition-related contaminant. Applying the Pd-biofilm system of Arizona, as optimized using the known perchlorate-containing growth media and neutral/basic pH control taught by Rittmann, to the treatment of ammunition-related contaminants as taught by Bowman would have constituted a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 4, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he method of claim 3, further comprising adjusting the pH of the fluid with ammunition- related contaminants to a neutral pH (Rittmann col. 10 Example 2a “pH was adjusted using 1M NaOH for a final pH of 7.0” ) . Regarding claim 5, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he method of claim 3, wherein the pH of the fluid with ammunition-related contaminants is a neutral pH (Rittmann col. 10 Example 2a “phosphate buffer at pH of 7”) . Regarding claim 6, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 1 , wherein the least one soluble autocatalytic metal precursor is selected from platinum group metals (Arizona p. 17 last par. “Na 2 PdCl 4 ”) . Regarding claim 7, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he method of claim 4 , wherein the concentration of the at least one soluble autocatalytic metal precursor in the catalyst precursor medium is 2 mM (Arizona p. 17 last par. “Stage 1” discloses 200 mg/L Pd(II) which is 1.88mM~2mM) . Regarding claim 8, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 1 , wherein the concentration of the at least one soluble autocatalytic metal precursor in the catalyst precursor medium is 0.1-5 mM (Arizona p. 17 last par. “Stage 1” discloses 200 mg/L Pd(II) which is 1.88mM~2mM) . Regarding claim 9, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 1 , wherein the inoculant comprises a H2-utilizing autotroph capable of reducing oxyanions (Arizona claims 1-6 describe an H2-utilizing autotroph “ dechloromonas ” capable of reducing oxyanions, specifically nitrate) , a H2-utilizing autotroph capable of reducing precious metals (Arizona claim 19 “ Desulfovibrionaceae ) , and a heterotroph capable of degrading organics ( Arizona claim 18 “ Bacteroidales ” and Bowman par. [0086] discloses heterotrophic degradation in a system where trichloroethylene and nitroso-dimethyl-amine are reduced) . Regarding claim 10, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 9 , wherein the inoculant comprises bacteria from the classes Betaproteobacteria, Alphaproteobacterial, and Saprospirae ( Arizona claim 21 discloses a-proteobacteria, β -proteobacteria, and flavobacteriales which are adjacent to and overlapping with Saprospirae and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Saprospirae to be a routine and predictable heterotrophic biofilm member within the same functional and ecological grouping as Arizona’s disclosed flavobacteriales organisms ) . Regarding claim 11, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 10 , wherein the inoculant further comprises bacteria from at least one class selected from the group consisting of: Clostridia, Flavobacteria, Bacteroidia, and Methanobacteria (Arizona claim 22) . Regarding claim 12, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 1 , wherein the inoculant comprises a member from Rhodocyclus (Arizona claims 19 and 22) , Rhizobiales (Arizona “α-proteobacteria”) , and Chitinophagaceae. Regarding claim 13, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 12 , wherein the inoculant further comprises a member of Azospira, Rhodocyclaceae (Arizona claims 19 and 22 and Rhodocyclaceae are of the genus Azospira ) , Dysgonomonas, and Bacteroidales (Arizona p.8 discloses biofilms from the order of Bacteroidales and Dysgonomonas is a known heterotrophic genus within the order) . Regarding claim 14, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 1, wherein the at least one nitrate salt in the growth medium provides a concentration of nitrate of at least 14 mg-N/L (Arizona p. 7 line 14 “ 10-70 mg N03-N/L ”) and the at least one perchlorate salt provides a concentration of ClO 4 - of at least 10 mg/L (it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to follow the suggestion of Rittmann which discloses this in the embodiment of Example 6b on col. 13 “10000µg/L”) . Regarding claim 15, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 12, wherein the at least one nitrate salt in the growth medium provides a concentration of nitrate of 14-48 mg-N/L (Arizona p. 7 line 14 “ 10-70 mg N03-N/L ”) and the at least one perchlorate salt provides a concentration of ClO 4 - of 10-200 mg/L (it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to follow the suggestion of Rittmann which discloses this in the embodiment of Example 6b on col. 13 “10000µg/L”) . Regarding claim 16, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 12, wherein the growth medium comprises 300-350 mg/L NaNO 3 and 240-245 mg/L NaClO 4 . (While none of the references disclose these concentrations explicitly, Rittman teaches that nitrate and perchlorate (Rittmann col. 1 lines 48-50 “sodium salts”) are routinely supplied as electron acceptors in hydrogen-based membrane biofilm reactors at concentrations selected according to stoichiometric demand, influent contaminant loading, and desired reduction performance (Rittman cols 7-8), and that such concentrations are adjusted within the mg/L range as a matter o f routine reactor design) . Regarding claim 17, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses a system for removing ammunition-related contaminants (Bowman claim 2 “TCE”) from a fluid comprising: a gas-transfer membrane (Arizona p. 2 last par. “hollow fiber membrane”) ; a hydrogen-gas source (Arizona p. 3 par. 1 “gas tank having H 2 gas”) ; autocatalytic metal nanoparticles (Arizona p. 17 last par. “Na 2 PdCl 4 ”) ; and a biofilm comprising a H2-utilizing autotroph capable of reducing oxyanions (Arizona claims 1-6 describe an H2-utilizing autotroph “ dechloromonas ” capable of reducing oxyanions, specifically nitrate) , a H2-utilizing autotroph capable of reducing precious metals (Arizona claim 19 “ Desulfovibrionaceae ) , and a heterotroph capable of degrading organics (Arizona claim 18 “ Bacteroidales ” and Bowman par. [0086] discloses heterotrophic degradation in a system where trichloroethylene and nitroso-dimethyl-amine are reduced) , wherein the autocatalytic metal nanoparticles are embedded in the matrices of the biofilm (Arizona p. 2 “microorganisms can reduce” palladium nanoparticle palladium and p. 18 Results “nanoparticulate Pd(0) formation in the biotic MBfR” as well as Figs 1, 5) . Regarding claim 22, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 17, wherein the autocatalytic metal nanoparticles are nanoparticles of at least one platinum group metal (Arizona p. 17 last par. “Na 2 PdCl 4 ”) . Regarding claim 24, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 17, wherein the biofilm comprises bacteria from the classes Betaproteobacteria, Alphaproteobacterial, and Saprospirae (Arizona claim 21 discloses a-proteobacteria, β -proteobacteria, and flavobacteriales which are adjacent to and overlapping with Saprospirae and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Saprospirae to be a routine and predictable heterotrophic biofilm member within the same functional and ecological grouping as Arizona’s disclosed flavobacteriales organisms) . Regarding claim 25, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 1 7 , wherein the biofilm further comprises bacteria from at least one class selected from the group consisting of: Clostridia, Flavobacteria, Bacteroidia, and Methanobacteria (Arizona claim 22) . Regarding claim 26, Arizona in view of Rittmann and further in view of Bowman discloses t he system of claim 17, wherein the biofilm comprises Rhodocyclus (Arizona claims 19 and 22) , Rhizobiales (Arizona “α-proteobacteria”) , and Chitinophagaceae (Arizona p. 8 discloses biofilms comprising microorganisms from Bacteroidales and Flavobacteriales, including flavobacteria . The family Chitinophagaceae is taxonomically encompassed within these groups and is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art as a heterotrophic, organic-degrading lineage commonly present in environmental biofilms. Selection of a member of Chitinophagaceae would have been an obvious species level choice within the organisms taught by Arizona). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5497 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT . 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 Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3240 . 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. /W.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1779 /Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779