DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on May 11, 2026. Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection of claim 5 is obviated by Applicant’s cancellation.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 and 101 from the previous office action are maintained.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 103 from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant' s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5: “the BES sensor” should be “the at least one BES sensor”
Claim 1, line 6: “the BES sensor” should be “the at least one BES sensor”
Claim 1, lines 7-10: “the temperature of the water sample; the temperature of ambient air; the electrical conductivity of the water sample; the pH of the water sample; the dissolved oxygen level of the water sample; or the rainfall recorded in proximity of the sensor” should be “temperature of the water sample; temperature of ambient air; electrical conductivity of the water sample; pH of the water sample; dissolved oxygen level of the water sample; or rainfall recorded in proximity of the sensor”
Claim 2, line 1: “the BES sensor” should be “the at least one BES sensor”
Claim 6, line 3: “BES sensor data” should be “the BES sensor data”
Claim 6, line 5: “at least one of environmental parameter” should be “the at least one environmental parameter”
Claim 6, line 5: “BES sensor configuration data” should be “the at least one piece of BES sensor configuration data for the at least one BES sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the environmental parameter data" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the at least one environmental parameter.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the at least one BES sensor.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the BES sensor" in line 11. It is unclear whether this sensor is the same as the recited at least one BES sensor in line 3. It is suggested to be “the at least one BES sensor.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the BES sensor" in line 12. It is unclear whether this sensor is the same as the recited at least one BES sensor in line 3. It is suggested to be “the at least one BES sensor.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a system" in line 15. It is unclear whether this system is the same as the recited BES device in line 2. It is suggested to be “the BES device.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the BES sensor" in line 15. It is unclear whether this sensor is the same as the recited at least one BES sensor in line 3. It is suggested to be “the at least one BES sensor.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "combining and processing …the received data" in line 7. It is unclear what the received data are and how to combine these data. Claim 1 recites the limitation “receiving in the BES device, data indicating one or more of: at least one environmental parameter, at least one piece of configuration data for the BES sensor, or at least one parameter for a system in which the BES sensor is implemented,” which means the received data is one of (1) at least one environmental parameter, (2) at least one piece of configuration data for the BES sensor, or (3) at least one parameter for a system in which the BES sensor is implemented. Thus, it is unclear what data are combined as recited. The specification discloses “an environmental parameter may include water pH, conductivity, temperature or dissolved oxygen. The following description provides greater detail of these different examples of further parameter data. Combining these parameters in a calibration algorithm with the BES sensor data gives a more precise estimate of the organic loading (water quality/pollution)” (PGpub ¶31). The disclosed working examples include inputs of BES sensor and conductivity data combined (Fig. 12: BES current x water conductivity; ¶46), or using inputs of BES sensor data, water flow rate data and other measured environmental parameters (water conductivity, pH and temperature) (Fig. 13; ¶47). However, there is no disclosure regarding how to combined this disclosed parameters. Applicant is request to amend the claim to specify what data are combined and processed. Examiner reminds that the amendment must be supported by the specification as-filed.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 is/are rejected based on rejected claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the indication" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “an indication.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2014/0353170).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a water quality monitoring method, the method comprising:
receiving in a BioElectrochemical System (BES) device, BES sensor data indicating an output from at least one BES sensor exposed to a water sample (¶22: BES, such as microbial fuel cells; during the metabolic process, the electrically active microbe will donate electrons to an electrode of a circuit or receive electrons from a circuit resulting in a measurable change in electrical potential or electric current within the circuit; BES output);
receiving in the BES device, data indicating one or more of: at least one parameter for a system in which the BES sensor is implemented (¶31: each BES cell will be calibrated prior to operation; the response of a BES may be modified by altering the flow rate); and
processing by the BES device the received data according to a calibration algorithm (Fig. 6: the correlation between BOD with current; ¶46: calibrated by exposing the cell to a number of standardized BOD samples, and measuring the current to construct a correlation) to generate a parameter indicative of organic compound concentration (¶46: the correlation may be programmed into a processor to interpret BOD values from measurements).
Huang does not explicitly disclose combining the received data for processing.
However, Huang teaches each BES cell will be calibrated prior to operation so that a given current or voltage may be correlated to a given level of BOD. The response of a BES may be modified by altering the flow rate (¶31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang by combining the data including the flow rate and the BES sensor data as suggested to achieve an optimized flow rate during calibration and calculate the BOD values (¶31). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches wherein the BES sensor comprise a Microbial Fuel Cell, MFC (¶24), comprising an electrode (Fig. 1: anode) coated with electrogenic bacteria (Fig. 1: microbes coated on the anode) arranged such that as the water sample flows past the electrode, organic matter is consumed by the electrogenic bacteria to generate an electrical current, the BES sensor output being indicative of that electrical current (¶24: at the anode side of the MFC, microbes metabolize organic matter, using water, to produce carbon dioxide and protons; electrons are produced and donated to the anode; ¶23: the current produced by this metabolic activity; further, this limitation “such that…” is directed to intended result without positively recited active steps to be performed and thus does not further limit the recited method).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches wherein the BES sensor data is indicative of the sum of BES sensor outputs from a plurality of BES sensors arranged hydraulically in series (¶34: five identical BES sensors; Fig. 2: indicating these BES sensors arranged in series along the flow) such that the water sample flows through the plural BES sensors or the outputs of each BES sensor individually (¶34: the mixture of buffer solution and sample will be pumped into each cell continuously; further, this limitation “such that…” is directed to intended result without positively recited active steps to be performed and thus does not further limit the recited method).
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches wherein the calibration algorithm comprises multiple regression (¶46: the correlation shown in Fig. 6) trained according to a data set comprising, for a plurality of water samples, BES sensor data, validation data indicating organic compound concentration for the water samples determined according to an alternative test, and at least one of environmental parameter data or BES sensor configuration data (¶46: a number of standardized BOD samples, measured current; ¶31: the response of a BES may be modified by the flow rate).
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches wherein the alternative test comprises Biological Oxygen Demand (¶21).
Regarding claims 8-10, Huang disclose all limitations of claim 3, but fails to teach determining a change in BES sensor data between a first time point and a second time point for each of the plurality of BES sensors; and determining, based on the change for each BES sensor, an indication whether the change is indicative of a change in organic compound concentration (claim 8) or monitoring organic compound concentration based on the parameter indicative of organic compound concentration (claim 9) or wherein monitoring organic compound concentration is further based on the indication whether the change is indicative of a change in organic compound concentration (claim 10).
However, Huang teaches the response of a BES may be modified by the microbial density of the cell (¶31). Thus, it is possible to tune each BES cell to achieve a beneficial linear range throughout which current may be correlated to a BOD level. Since a change in BOD level will quickly result in a change in measured current, it allows a change in BOD to be quickly recognized to achieve a real-time monitoring of BOD (¶31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang by determining a change in the BES sensor data, e.g., measured current, at two different times to determine whether the change is indicative of a change in organic compound concentration because it would be able to quickly recognize the BOD change based on the current change and to tune the BES cell to achieve a beneficial linear range (¶31). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Masakari (US 2018/0355022).
Regarding claim 4, Huang disclose all limitations of claim 3, but fails to teach wherein for a plurality of BES sensors the BES sensor data is indicative of normalised current data for each BES sensor.
However, Masakari teaches electrochemical measurement of glucose (¶212) for establishing a calibration curve by plotting the current values relative to the corresponding glucose concentrations with known concentration (¶214). Instead of current, current densities normalized by the working electrode may be plotted (¶214).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang by substituting the current with current density for establishing calibration curve to calculate the analyte concentration as taught by Masakari because the normalized current density is an alternative approach for establish a calibration curve and the substitution of current for current density would yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the 101 analysis on the patentable eligible subject matter is presented as follows:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Claim 1 is directed to a water quality monitoring method, which is a process and falls within four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(II). Claim 1 recites “(a) receiving in a BioElectrochemical System (BES) device, BES sensor data indicating an output from at least one BES sensor exposed to a water sample; (b) receiving in the BES device, data indicating one or more of: at least one environmental parameter, at least one piece of configuration data for the BES sensor or at least one parameter for a system in which the BES sensor is implemented; and (c) combining and processing by the BES device the received data according to a calibration algorithm to generate a parameter indicative of organic compound concentration for the water sample.” These limitations are directed to one of the judicial exceptions, i.e., abstract idea, because limitations (a)-(c) recite receiving data, combining and processing the received data, which is simple enough that it can be practically preformed in the human mind and falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Claim 1 recites the additional element of the BES sensor, but the “receiving” steps are merely gathering data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations in the claim are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the measuring circuit and the processor does not affect this analysis. MPEP 2106.05(I). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. Claim 1 recites receiving the BES sensor data and one or more of: at least one environmental parameter, at least one piece of configuration data for the BES sensor, or at least one parameter for a system in which the BES sensor is implemented for combining and processing, which are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. As explained in Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element, i.e., the BES sensor, merely provides data for use of the recited judicial exception. In sum, these limitations do not amount to significantly more because the additional element represent mere data gathering to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claims 2-7, the limitations regarding the types of the BES sensor (claim 2), the BES sensor data (claims 3-4), the environmental parameter data (claim 5), the calibration algorithm (claim 6), the data from alternative tests (claim 7), are directed to data gathering and calculation of a process, which falls within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. These additional elements, various types of the BES sensor and its outputted data, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it merely represent data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations “(i) determining a change in BES sensor data between a first time point and a second time point for each of the plurality of BES sensors; and (ii) determining, based on the change for each BES sensor, an indication whether the change is indicative of any of a change in organic compound concentration, the presence of toxicity, excessive organic compound concentration or sensor recovery from excessive organic compound concentration or toxicity” are directed to steps of a process, which falls within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element, the BES sensor, does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it merely represent data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claims 9-10, the limitation “monitoring organic compound concentration based on the parameter indicative of organic compound concentration” (claim 9), “wherein monitoring organic compound concentration or controlling process flows is further based on the indication whether the change is indicative of a change in organic compound concentration, the presence of toxicity, excessive organic compound concentration or sensor recovery from excessive organic compound concentration or toxicity” (claim 10) or “controlling process flows in a waste water treatment plant or industrial process based on the parameter indicative of organic compound concentration in order to maintain organic compound concentration within a predetermined tolerance” (claim 9) are directed to steps of a process, which falls within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element, the BES sensor, does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it merely represent data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive in light of new grounds for rejection.
Applicant argues the received data can be one or more of sensor data and/or parameter data (Response, p. 5, para. 2). This argument is unpersuasive because claim 1 recited two steps of receiving data, including (1) the BES sensor data and (2) one or more of: at least one environmental parameter, at least one piece of configuration data for the BES sensor, or at least one parameter for a system in which the BES sensor is implemented. However, when claim 1 recites “combining and processing the received data” in line 17, it is unclear what the received data are. Applicant is requested to amend claim 1 to specify what data and how these data are combined and processed in the last step. By providing the possible data (p. 5, para. 2: the received data can be one or more of sensor data and/or parameter data) does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter and thus make the claim being indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (pp. 8-11) are moot according to the new grounds of rejection. Here, Huang does not explicitly disclose combining the received data for processing. However, Huang teaches each BES cell will be calibrated prior to operation so that a given current or voltage may be correlated to a given level of BOD. The response of a BES may be modified by altering the flow rate (¶31). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang by combining the data including the flow rate and the BES sensor data as suggested to achieve optimized flow rate during calibration and calculate the BOD values (¶31).
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (pp. 5-8) are unpersuasive. In response to Applicant’s argument that the recited method of amended claim 1 is not simple enough (p. 6, para. 1-2) and cannot be practically performed in the human mind (p. 6, para. 4; p. 7, last para.). This argument is unpersuasive because the method merely includes (1) receiving data, i.e., sensor data and one or more of environmental parameter, configuration data, or system data and (2) combining and processing the received data, which is directed to one of the judicial exceptions, i.e., abstract idea, because the method is simple enough that it can be practically preformed in the human mind and falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. Examiner notes receiving data, combining data, and processing data are simply enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
Applicant further argues the present invention is concerned with improving water monitoring systems (p. 7, para. 2; p. 8, para. 2) and the claimed method requires the BES device to combine and process data from multiple parameters output from the sensor device in real time (p. 7, para. 3). This argument is unpersuasive. Prong Two of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis is to evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Here, the “receiving” steps are merely gathering data by the BES device that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. In another word, these limitations in the claim are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the measuring circuit and the processor does not affect this analysis. MPEP 2106.05(I). Further, when the claim as a whole is considered, it does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception because the additional element, i.e., the BES device, does not add an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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 on 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights