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 .
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US11552323 B2) in view of Hung et al. (US20210028466 A1) and Rufford et al. (WO2010020007 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 9: Lin discloses a plant microbial fuel cell including a planting container containing a culture medium and a microbial community, a plant grown in the culture medium, a cathode disposed at the soil and water and an anode disposed around the roots (col. 1, lines 42-55; col. 2, lines 14-24).
Lin does not disclose that the anode is a porous carbon material prepared from coffee grounds.
Hung teaches a microbial fuel cell including a cathode and an anode made of activated carbon
prepared from waste coffee grounds as an electrode material (abstract, paragraph [0002], [0007]). Hung further teaches that the carbon material of the cathode may comprise activated carbon, including waste coffee ground activated carbon, and teaches an anode comprising activated carbon prepared from waste coffee grounds [0038]. Thus, Hung teaches the use of coffee grounds derived carbon material for both cathode and anode electrode structures. Hung further defines micropores as pores having a diameter of less than 2 nm and mesopores as pores having a diameter between 2 nm and 50 nm [0049].
Rufford teaches an activated porous carbon prepared from waste coffee grounds having a mesopore content greater than a micropore content. Rufford discloses activated coffee ground carbons prepared by chemical activation of waste coffee grounds with ZnCl2 [066]. Table 4 discloses that CGC-3.5 has a mesopore value of 616 compared with a micropore value of 324, and CGC-5 has a mesopore value of 845 compared with a micropore value of 176. Thus, Rufford teaches coffee ground derived porous carbon in which the amount of mesopores is greater than the amount of micropores [068], Table 4.
Thus, Hung in combination with Rufford teaches the claimed porous carbon material prepared from coffee grounds having more mesopores than micropores, wherein the mesopores have a diameter of 2 nm to 50 nm and the micropores have a diameter of less than 2 nm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Trapa natans husk biochar of Lin with the coffee grounds derived activated carbon materials taught by Hung because both materials are conductive porous biomass carbon electrode materials suitable for microbial fuel cell electrode and such substitution would have a predictable maintained the known electrochemical function of the electrode while providing the waste recycling benefits taught by Hung. See Hung’s Abstract.
It would further have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the coffee grounds derived activated carbon of Hung with the mesopore dominant structure taught by Rufford because Rufford teaches that the pore structure of the activated carbon prepared from the waste coffee grounds may be controlled by varying the activated agent ratio and that greater the mesopore content, improves the electrolyte ion transport and the electrochemical performances. See Rufford [067], [074].
With respect to claim 9, it would further have been obvious to utilize Hung’s coffee grounds derived carbon material for both the cathode and the anode of Lin because Hung teaches the waste coffee ground activated carbon as a suitable carbon material for the cathode and as the electrode material for the anode of a microbial fuel cell. Such use would have predictably provided a conductive carbon electrode material derived from coffee grounds. See MPEP §2143(B).
Regarding Claim 3 and 10: Lin in view of Hung and Rufford disclose the limitation of claims 1 and 9 as set forth above.
Lin further discloses that the cathode and anode electrode structures include conductive plates, where the activated carbon and biochar materials are coated on the surfaces of the conductive plates to form electrochemical active electrodes (col. 4, lines 18-21).
Hung teaches the porous carbon material prepared from waste coffee ground as discussed above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the anode of Lin with the coffee ground derived porous carbon material of Hung because Lin teaches a coating of carbon electrode material on a conductive substrate to from an electrochemically active electrode. Such combination would have predictably provided an electrical conductivity and structural support for the porous carbon electrode material. See MPEP § 2143(A).
Regarding Claim 12: Lin and Hung disclose the limitations of claim 9 as set forth above.
Hung teaches a cathode comprising a conductive plate having a carbon material that may comprise an activated carbon, including waste coffee ground activated carbon [0038].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cathode of Lin with the conductive plate and carbon coating taught by Hung, because Hung teaches such a structure as a known cathode configuration for a microbial fuel cell. The combination would have practicably provided a conductive support for the porous carbon electrode material. See MPEP §2143(A).
Regarding Claim 2, 4, 11 and 13: Lin in view of Hung and Rufford discloses the limitation of the respective base claims as set forth above.
Lin further discloses a conductive electrode materials comprising carbon cloth, graphite felt, carbon felt, graphite paper, carbon paper, graphite brus, carbon brush, stainless steel mesh and nickel foam for microbial fuel cell electrodes (col. 4, lines 18-25).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select one of the conductive electrode materials taught by Lin for the cathode or conductive plate, as recited in claims 2, 4, 11 and 13, because such conductive substrates were k known for use in the microbial fuel cell electrode due to their conductivity and compatibility with the porous carbon electrode. See MPEP §2143(C).
Regarding Claim 5 and 14: Lin in view of Hung and Rufford disclose the limitation of claims 1 and 9 as set forth above. Hung further discloses activated carbon prepared from waste coffee grounds using pore forming agents, where the weight ratio of the waste coffee grounds and the pore forming agent is 1:1 to 1:10 including ratios of 1:5 (paragraph [0017], [0046]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an activation weight ration within the overlapping ranges taught by Hung, because Hung teaches that varying the amount of activator relative to the waste coffee grounds affects the pore structure and electrochemical properties of the resulting activated carbon. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6 and 15: Lin in view of Hung and Rufford discloses the limitation of claims 5 and 14 as set forth above. Lin further discloses that the pore-forming agent or activator may comprise KOH or NaOH (col. 3, 45-50). Hung similarly teaches activator including KOH and NaOH [0016]. Thus, Lin and Hung disclose the additional limitation of claim 6 and 15.
Accordingly claims 6 and 15 would have been obvious for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 5 and 14.
Regarding Claim 7 and 16: Lin in view of Hung and Rufford discloses the limitation of claims 1 and 9 as set forth above. Lin further discloses a biofuel cell comprising soil housed in a container, a plant planted in the soil, and water added to the container such that a water surface is above the soil (col. 2, lines 13-19). Thus, Lin discloses the additional limitations that the culture medium comprises water, soil and water and soil.
Accordingly, claims 7 and 16 would have been obvious over Lin in view of Hung for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1 and 9.
Regarding Claim 8 and 17: Lin in view of Hung and Rufford discloses the limitation of claims 1 and 9 as set forth above. Lin further discloses a plant planted in soil within a container (Fig.1). Lin does not disclose that the plant is a foliage plant.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a foliage plant for use in the plant microbial fuel cell of Lin because the selection of a particular plant type would have been a matter of design choice based on known considerations such as environmental adaptability and suitability for growth in the culture medium. See MPEP §2144.04.
Regarding Claim 18: Lin in view of Hung and Rufford discloses the limitation of claims 1 and 9 as set forth above.
Lin further discloses that the microbial community include a single microbial system such an Escherichia coli, Shewanella putrefaciens or a diverse microbial system in wastewater sludge (col. 4, lines 8-11).
Hung similarly teaches a microbial community including E. coli, Shewanella putrefaciens and diverse microbial systems in wastewater sludge (paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize microbial population such as Escherichia coli, Shewanella putrefaciens
and a diverse microbial system in wastewater sludge microbial system in the plant microbial fuel cell of
Lin because both Lin and Hung teach that such microbial communities are suitable for a microbial fuel cell operation and electron transfer generation See Lin col. 4, lines 25-35; See Hung [0019].
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 09/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lin and Hung fail to teach or suggest a porous carbon material having more mesopores than micropores, wherein the mesopores have a diameter of 2 nm to 50 nm and the micropores have a diameter of less than 2nm. Applicants’ argument has been considered.
However, Rufford teaches an activated porous carbon prepared from waste coffee grounds having a greater amount of mesopores than micropores. Specifically, Rufford discloses activated carbon samples prepared from waste coffee grounds and reports in Table 4 that CGC-3.5 has a mesopore value of 616 and a micropore value of 324, while CGC-5 has a mesopore value of 845 and a micropore value of 176. Thus, Rufford teaches coffee ground derived from porous carbon in which the amount of the mesopores is greater than the amount of the micropores [067], Table 4.
Hung further defines micropores as pores having a diameter of less than 2 nm and mesopores as pores having a diameter of 2 nm to 5 nm [0049]. Accordingly, Hung in combination with Rufford teaches the presently claimed pore relationship and pore size ranges.
This interpretation is consistent with the Applicants’ own disclosure at paragraph [0040] and Fig. 5, which characterizes the relative amount of the mesopores and microspores in terms of pore volume.
Furthermore, with respect to claim 9, Hung teaches that the carbon material of the cathode may comprise active carbon, including waste coffee ground activated carbon, and further teaches an anode comprising activated carbon prepared from waste coffee grounds. Therefore, Hung teaches the use of coffee-grounds derived carbon material in both the cathode and the anode.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NATHALY M RESTO OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)895-1575. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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.
/NMRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights