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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 4-6, 8-11, and 14 in the reply filed on 08/07/2026 is acknowledged. The Applicant has cancelled claims 16-18.
Claims 4-6, 8-11, and 14 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
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) 4-6, 8-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al (US 20120199492 A1) in view of Rabaey et al (US 20110315560 A1).
Claim 4: Jin discloses a microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) stack in a bio-electromethanogenesis plant (see e.g. abstract; [0008]) comprising:
at least two MEC cells (see e.g. #100-1, etc. on Fig 3),
wherein each MEC cell comprises a cathode compartment and an anode compartment (see e.g. #100 on Fig 1);
wherein the MEC cells are fluidly connected in series (see e.g. #100-1, etc. on Fig 3); and
wherein the MEC stack comprises at least one catholyte circuit, connecting the cathode compartments of two or more MEC cells of the MEC stacks (see e.g. Fig 3; [0040]) characterized in that the MEC stack comprises the MEC stack comprising a degassing element for extracting at least one output gas (see e.g. “Organic Compounds” on Fig 3) and at least two gas inlets located within the at least one catholyte circuit (each cell has a gas inlet, see e.g. #122 on Fig 1, and there are at least two cells, see e.g. #304 on Fig 3), wherein each gas inlet comprises a respective flow controller to regulate the gas input from the gas source (see e.g. [0039]).
Jin does not explicitly teach that the MEC stack comprises at least two degassing elements for extracting at least one output gas. Rabaey teaches a microbial electrolysis cell (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The cell of Rabaey includes two degassing elements (see e.g. #28 and #36 on Fig 1) which collects the desired product (see e.g. [0064]) and release excess gas built up in the system (see e.g. [0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the stack of Jin so that it includes the additional degassing element taught in Rabaey to remove any excess gas built up in the system.
Claim 5: Jin in view of Rabaey teaches at least one gas inlet at one or more individual MEC cells of the MEC stack (see e.g. Jin - #122 on Fig 1).
Claim 6: Jin in view of Rabaey teaches at least one gas inlet within the cathode compartment of the one or more individual MEC cells (see e.g. Jin - #122 on Fig 1).
Claim 8: Jin in view of Rabaey teaches that one of the de-gassing elements is located after a last MEC cell of the MEC stack to extract at least a first gas/one of the process gases from the MEC stack (see e.g. Jin - “Organic Compounds” on Fig 3).
Claim 9: Jin in view of Rabaey teaches that one or more de-gassing elements are located after one or more of the other MEC cells (each cell has the vent for releasing excess gas, see e.g. Rabaey - #28 on Fig 1).
Claim 10: Jin in view of Rabaey teaches that the pH of the system is adjusted and controlled to be within a specific range, as well as the temperature (see e.g. Jin - [0026], [0032]). Therefore, a pH measuring system and a temperature measuring system would have to be a part of the system because the pH and temperature are monitored and maintained even though it is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim 11: Jin in view of Rabaey teaches that the pH measuring system and temperature system are located after at least one gas inlet (they measure the conditions of the cathode compartment, see e.g. Jin - [0026], [0032]).
Claim 14: Jin in view of Rabaey teaches that the two or more MEC stacks being fluidly connected through the catholyte circuit (see e.g. Jin - Fig 3; [0040]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM. 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights