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 Objection
Claim 6 is objected to because there is no “or” between the two options, i.e. a) “the current collector has a structure having a multitude of orifices …” and b) “the current collector extends over 90 to 100% of the height of the microbial biofilm compartment …”. Applicant is respectfully requested to amend to include an “or” between the two options to clarify that one of ordinary skill in the art would be selecting between two options.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites “the compartment” in lines 6-7, 8-9, 10. Claim 1 recites “at least one anode compartment”, “at least one cathode compartment” and “a microbial biofilm compartment”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear which compartment is deemed “the compartment”. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claimed “the compartment” may be either the “at least one anode compartment”, “at least one cathode compartment” and/or “a microbial biofilm compartment”. Claim 6 is deemed indefinite for similar reasonings.
Claim 1 recites “at least two stages each defining a chamber serving as a container for the granular support material”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because a) it is unclear if stages and chamber(s) are the same structural element or separate and distinct structural elements of the claimed bio-electrochemical reactor; b) it is unclear if “chamber” and “container” are the same structural element or separate and distinct structural elements of the claimed bio-electrochemical reactor and c) what structural relationship exist between stage, chamber and container. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 understood as “said collector comprising at least two [[stages each defining]] a chamber, wherein each chamber contains a portion of
Claim 1 recites “ “said collector conforming to the shape of the microbial biofilm compartment over the height of said collector measured according to the X direction … and in that, … inside at least one chamber of the current collector so-called the fluidisation chamber, a height at rest of the granular support material measured according to the X direction in the absence of fluid circulation inside the microbial biofilm compartment, is a height suitable for fluidisation of said granular support material smaller than the total height of the fluidisation chamber” is deemed indefinite.
First, it is unclear what “so-called” means. Second, it is unclear what “fluidisation” means. “A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined” (see MPEP 2173.05 (b), II). The term “fluidisation” is understood to not be a known standard. It is unclear how fluidisation is determined. It is understood that fluidisation varies based on the materials being worked upon. It is unclear how different granular material(s) and fluid(s) may affect and/or change the fluidisation. It is unclear how much liquid is necessary to cause fluidisation or how much movement is deemed to meet fluidisation. For the sake of compact prosecution, the height of the at rest of the granular support material measured according to the X direction in the absence of fluid circulation inside the microbial biofilm is understood to be smaller than the total height of a stage, a chamber and/or a container of the multi-stage current collector.
Claim 1 recites “said collector conforming to the shape of the microbial biofilm compartment over the height of said collector measured according to the X direction”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is defining heigh of the collector in terms of itself, “said collector conforming to the shape … over the height of said collector”.
Claim 1 recites “a structure provided with a multitude of orifices not letting the particulate material pass”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “the particulate material” limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claimed “the particulate material” is understood to be “the granular support material”.
Claim 1 recites “letting the fluid pass” and “not letting the particulate material pass”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear what structural element the material is passing or not passing. That is, it is unclear if the “pass” is through a single or combination of chamber(s)/container(s), the multi-stage current collector, the bio-electrochemical reactor, or an unknown element. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 is open to any of these interpretations.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
Claim 2 recites “the anode compartment is a microbial biofilm compartment, and, optionally, the cathode compartment is a microbial biofilm compartment”. Claim 2 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if “a microbial biofilm compartment” of the anode compartment and “a microbial biofilm compartment” of the cathode compartment is the same as or separate and distinct from the claimed “microbial biofilm compartment”, as recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the separator comprises a cation-exchange membrane and an anion-exchange membrane separated from each other by an inter-membrane compartment comprising a device for drawing molecules synthesised within said reactor, the membranes being optionally positioned so that the anode compartment is separated from the cathode compartment, from the anode compartment to the cathode compartment, by said cation-exchange membrane and said anion-exchange membrane”. Claim 4 is deemed indefinite because 1) it is unclear if inter-membrane compartment is an element of the claimed separator; 2) it is unclear what component(s) or compartment(s) are being separated from or by which membranes and 3) it is unclear if “a device” is an element of the claimed inter-membrane compartment or an element of the claimed separator. It is unclear how or where the drawn molecules are being drawn to. That is, it is unclear if the molecules are being drawn across the cation-exchange membrane, anion-exchange membrane, or inter-membrane compartment, drawn out of the bio-electrochemical reactor or drawn to some unknown location or element.
For the sake of compact prosecution, a portion of claim 4 is understood as: the separator comprises a cation-exchange membrane, an inter-membrane compartment and an anion-exchange membrane. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claimed device is understood to be anything that causes movement of a molecule.
Claim 6 recites “the current collector extends over 90 to 100% of the height of the microbial biofilm compartment, this height of the microbial biofilm compartment being defined as the distance separating the at least one inlet of the at least one outlet of the compartment according to the X direction”. Claim 6 is deemed indefinite it is unclear what “the at least one inlet of the at least one outlet of the compartment” means. As noted above, it is unclear which compartment, as recited in independent claim 1, is the claimed “compartment” of claim 6. Further, it is unclear because the height of the current collector is defined in terms of an unknown height of the microbial biofilm compartment, which may or may not be defined in terms of itself, i.e. claim 1 recites an at least one anode compartment, at least one cathode compartment, and at least one amongst the anode and cathode compartments is a microbial biofilm compartment.
Claim 7 recites “the height of each fluidisation chamber according to the X direction is determined according to characteristic parameters of the granular support material selected from among the density, the geometry and the particle size of the granular support material and according to at least one characteristic parameter of the circulation of the effluent inside the microbial biofilm compartment, such as its superficial velocity”. Claim 7 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear what “such as” means. Claim 7 is deemed indefinite for similar reasons as represented in claim 1 for terms “fluidisation”/“chamber”. Claim 7 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how to determine fluidisation based on a singular parameter of granular support material, a singular parameter of the circulation of the effluent and/or combination of said parameters.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-9 (as identified in the Requirement for Restriction dated June 10, 2026), in the reply filed on August 10, 2026 is acknowledged. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on August 10, 2026.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 10, 2026
In the response, it was argued that WO 529 (US 20210340039 Al is herein cited as the English language translation) (hereinafter US 039) does not discloses the claimed microbial biofilm compartment (see Response pages 1-2). In the response, it was argued that while WO 529/US 039 discloses the use of a metal basket to contain carbon granules, WO 529/US 039 “does not mention the possibility of fluidizing these particles inside each basket using a structure as set forth in claim 1, such as for improving effluent treatment. No fluidization of the carbon granules is described” (see Response pages 1-2). This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
As established above, the claimed language “said collector conforming to the shape of the microbial biofilm compartment over the height of said collector measured according to the X direction … and in that, … inside at least one chamber of the current collector so-called the fluidisation chamber, a height at rest of the granular support material measured according to the X direction in the absence of fluid circulation inside the microbial biofilm compartment, is a height suitable for fluidisation of said granular support material smaller than the total height of the fluidisation chamber” is deemed indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the height of the at rest of the granular support material measured according to the X direction in the absence of fluid circulation inside the microbial biofilm is understood to be smaller than the total height of a stage, a chamber and/or a container of the multi-stage current collector.
US 039 discloses “the total height at rest of the granular support material corresponding to the sum of the heights at rest of the granular support material in each of the chambers of the current collector of the microbial biofilm compartment, could range from 10 to 75% of the total height of the current collector” (see US 039 paragraph 0062; see also US 039 figure 1, 3-4a and 6; paragraphs 0063, 0082). Hence, US 039 discloses the height of the at rest of the granular support material measured according to the X direction in the absence of fluid circulation inside the microbial biofilm is understood to be smaller than the total height of a stage, a chamber and/or a container of the multi-stage current collector. It is noted that the direction X may be any direction and the X direction is any direction that is not parallel to a direction Z and it is noted that direction Z is an undefined direction.
Thus, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made final.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “according to an X direction” and “the direction X of circulation of the fluid inside said microbial biofilm compartment is not parallel to a direction Z from the anode compartment to the cathode compartment”. Claim 1 is understood as the direction X is any direction that is not parallel to a Z direction and it is noted that the Z direction is an undefined direction that can be any direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2020053529 A1 (hereinafter WO 529) (WO 529 was filed on September 12, 2019 (foreign priority filed on September 13, 2018) and was published on March 19, 2020. WO 529 is available as prior art under either 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).) (US 20210340039 A1 is herein cited as the English language translation) (hereinafter US 039)
Regarding claim 1, US 039discloses a bio-electrochemical reactor for treating a liquid effluent see US 039 abstract and figures 1-3A and paragraphs 0014.
US 039 discloses at least one anode compartment and at least one cathode compartment, at least one separator located between the at least one anode compartment and the at least one cathode compartment (see US 039 abstract, figures 1, 2, 5, 6 and paragraphs 0015-0017).
US 039 discloses at least one amongst the anode and cathode compartments is a microbial biofilm compartment (see US 039 figures 1-6 and paragraphs 0019).
US 039 discloses at least one fluid inlet located at one end of the compartment and at least one fluid outlet located at an opposite end of the compartment (see US 039 figures 1-6; claim 3; paragraph 0025 & 0060).
US 039 discloses means for circulating the fluid inside the compartment between the at least one inlet and the at least one outlet according to an X direction (see US 039 claim 3; and paragraphs 0025, 0060, 0072).
US 039 discloses an electrolyte comprising electroactive microorganisms (see US 039 paragraphs 0019, 0023, 0030, 0059).
US 039 discloses a biocompatible granular support material (see US 039 figures 3-4a and paragraph 0028, 0065).
US 039 discloses a multi-stage current collector located between the at least one fluid inlet and the at least one fluid outlet of said microbial biofilm compartment, said collector comprising at least two stages each defining a chamber serving as a container for the granular support material and letting the fluid pass, said collector conforming to the shape of the microbial biofilm compartment over the height of said collector measured according to the X direction and having a structure provided with a multitude of orifices not letting the particulate material pass (hereinafter understood as “the granular support material”), and in that, the direction X of circulation of the fluid inside said microbial biofilm compartment is not parallel to a direction Z from the anode compartment to the cathode compartment, and inside at least one chamber of the current collector so-called the fluidisation chamber, a height at rest of the granular support material measured according to the X direction in the absence of fluid circulation inside the microbial biofilm compartment, is a height suitable for fluidisation of said granular support material smaller than the total height of the fluidisation chamber (see US 039 figure 1, 3-4-6 and; paragraphs 0062-0063, 0067-0068).
Regarding claim 2, US 039 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 039 discloses the anode compartment is a microbial biofilm compartment, and, optionally, the cathode compartment is a microbial biofilm compartment (see rejection of claim 1; see US 039 abstract; paragraphs 0059; claims 6, 8). Herein, the microbial biofilm compartment of the anode compartment is understood to be any microbial biofilm compartment and the microbial biofilm compartment of the cathode compartment is understood to be the microbial biofilm compartment, as recited in independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, US 039 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 039 discloses said reactor is an electrolysis reactor or a microbial electrosynthesis reactor comprising means for applying a potential difference between the current collector of the microbial biofilm compartment and the electrode of the other compartment (see rejection of claim 1; see US 039 abstract, figures 1, 5, 6; claims 1, 10-11; and paragraphs 0017, 0023, 0025, 0058-0060, 0068-0069).
Regarding claim 4, US 039 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 039 disclose the separator comprises a cation-exchange membrane and an anion-exchange membrane separated from each other by an inter-membrane compartment, the membranes being optionally positioned so that the anode compartment is separated from the cathode compartment, from the anode compartment to the cathode compartment, by said cation-exchange membrane and said anion-exchange membrane (see US 039 abstract, figure 1 and paragraphs 0017, 0057-0058).
US 039 discloses a device for drawing molecules synthesised within said reactor (see US 039 paragraph 0022, 0025).
Regarding claim 6, US 039 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 039 disclose the current collector has a structure having a multitude of orifices which do not let the particulate material pass through, formed by a fabric or a mesh (see rejection of claim 1).
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.
Claims 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 039.
Regarding claim 2, US 039 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
Under the interpretation the microbial biofilm compartment of the anode compartment is the same as the microbial biofilm compartment, as recited in independent claim 1, then US 039 does not disclose the anode compartment is the microbial biofilm compartment, as recited in independent claim 1.
US 039 discloses an example of the structure of the bioanode consist of “a metal frame 17 formed of two parallel walls which between them enclose two parallel stainless steel grids 18 housing a carbon fabric 15 between them. This carbon fabric 15 may take the form of a single element or the form of strips of fabric arranged in parallel” (see US 039 paragraph 0065; see also US 039 figures 4-4A). US 039 discloses an example of the structure of the biocathode of “a frame 27 with a size of 30×30 cm defining four housings in the example presented here. These housings incorporate metal baskets 23 with a thickness of between 4 and 5 cm in which carbon granules 25 are placed. The metal frame 27 is connected to a current collector 26 surmounting said frame” (see US 063 paragraph 0063; see also US 039 figures 3-3A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the structure of the bioanode of US 039 to be a frame with more than one metal basket comprising carbon granules, as disclosed in US 039, because US 039 provides two structural examples of the electrodes, i.e. anode and cathode, and choosing from of known elements/embodiments is obvious to try. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the structure of the bioanode of US 039 to be a frame with more than one metal basket comprising carbon granules, as disclosed in US 039, because it would assist with achieving an active area of the bioelectrode/bioanode (see US 039 paragraph 0023) and/or because it would assist with controlling the active areas of the bioanode and/or because it would assist with controlling the potential difference between the biocathode and the bioanodes and/or because it would assist with achieving fine control of the anode potential and/or optimization of the activity of the anode biofilm (see US 039 paragraphs 0023, 0068-0069).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the structure of the bioanode of US 039, to be a frame with more than one metal basket comprising carbon granules, as disclosed in US 039, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. perform as a bioelectrode/perform as a bioanode.
Regarding claim 6, US 039 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
As noted above, claim 6 is deemed indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 6 is understood as: the current collector extends over 90 to 100% of the height of the at least one anode compartment, the at least one cathode compartment, or the microbial biofilm compartment.
US 039 does not disclose the current collector extends over 90 to 100% of the height of the at least one anode compartment, the at least one cathode compartment, or the microbial biofilm compartment.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the current collector of US 039 to be 90-100% of the height of the at least one anode compartment, the at least one cathode compartment, or the microbial biofilm compartment because it would assist with providing an electron pathway; because it would assist with providing granular support over the majority or totality of the electrode(s); because it would assist with providing additional area for microorganism to be supported and/or because it would assist with providing structural integrity of the electrode(s).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the current collector of US 039 to be 90-100% of the height of the at least one anode compartment, the at least one cathode compartment, or the microbial biofilm compartment and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. to provide support for the granular material and/or to distribute electrical current to the electrodes and/or add mechanical resilience.
Regarding claim 7, US 039 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
As noted above, claim 7 is deemed indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 7 is understood as the height of each chamber according to the X direction is determined according to characteristic parameters of the granular support material and according to at least one characteristic parameter of the circulation of the effluent inside the microbial biofilm compartment.
US 039 does not disclose the height of each chamber according to the X direction is determined according to characteristic parameters of the granular support material and according to at least one characteristic parameter of the circulation of the effluent inside the microbial biofilm compartment.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the height of each chamber of US 039 in terms of the granular material and the fluid traveling through the bioelectrochemical reactor because said chamber of US 039 is needed to hold the granular material and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the characteristics of the fluid flowing through said chamber to ensure sufficient flow through the chamber and/or reactor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the height of each chamber of US 039 in terms of the granular material and the fluid traveling through the bioelectrochemical reactor because US 039 does not provide guidance on the height of the chamber of US 039 and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider all parameters, such as those related to the material held within the chamber and the fluid flowing through the chamber, when determining a dimension, such as height.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 039 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20110315561 A1 (hereinafter US 561).
Regarding claim 5, US 039 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
Further, US 039 does not disclose the at least one microbial biofilm compartment includes at least one recycling circuit connecting the at least one outlet to the at least one fluid inlet or connecting the at least one outlet to at least one recycling inlet opening into one of the chambers or upstream of one of the chambers with respect to the circulation of the fluid.
US 561 discloses a “bioelectrochemical system having an anode at which one or more reactions are biocatalysed by microorganisms or a cathode at which one or more reactions are biocatalysed by microorganisms or both an anode and a cathode at which one or more reactions are biocatalysed by microorganisms” (see US 561 paragraph 0012; see also US 561 figures 1-4 and paragraphs 0016-0017). US 561 discloses a bioelectrochemical system wherein “the effluent leaving the anode compartment 31 may be recycled or circulated back to the anode compartment 31 via a recirculation line 50. Similarly, the alkaline stream leaving the cathode compartment 34 via stream 42 may also be recycled or recirculated back to the cathode compartment 34 via a recirculation line 51” (see US 561 paragraph 0093; see also US 561figure 4 and paragraph 0094). US 561 discloses the pH of the anode effluent and/or the alkaline stream can be adjusted by the recirculation of material through the recirculation lines (see US 561 figure 4 and paragraph 0093).
US 561 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. bioelectrochemical system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the bioelectrochemical reactor in a system, as disclosed in US 561, which comprises a recirculation line for recycling or circulating back a stream leaving the anode compartment, the cathode compartment or both, back into the anode compartment, the cathode compartment or both, respectively, because it would assist with further treating the effluent/stream and/or purifying the stream by recycling back to the electrode for further treatment and/or because it would assist with adjusting the pH of the stream into the respective electrode(s).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the bioelectrochemical reactor in a system, as disclosed in US 561, which comprises a recirculation line for recycling or circulating back a stream leaving the anode compartment, the cathode compartment or both, back into the anode compartment, the cathode compartment or both, respectively, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. recycle material back for further treatment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the bioelectrochemical reactor in a system, as disclosed in US 561, which comprises a recirculation line for recycling or circulating back a stream leaving the anode compartment, the cathode compartment or both, back into the anode compartment, the cathode compartment or both, respectively, because the use of a known technique to improve similar system in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Herein, the known technique, i.e. recycling or recirculating line, to improve similar system, i.e. a bioelectrochemical reactor, is being used in the same way, i.e. recycling a stream back into the system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 039 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130112601 A1 (hereinafter US 601).
Regarding claim 8, US 039 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 039 discloses the biocathode comprises carbon grains arranged in a container made of stainless steel (see US 039 claim 6 and paragraph 0027).
US 039 does not disclose the granular support material is selected from among a polymer material, granular graphite, granular activated carbon, biochar, magnetite, a composite material having a conductive outer layer.
US 601 discloses a “bio-electrochemical system for treating wastewater include at least one reaction module comprising two electrode chambers of the same polarization and one electrode chamber of a different polarization, each of the electrode chambers being arranged succession in substantial proximity to the other” (see US 601 paragraph 0012; see also US 601 abstract, figures 2-3, 5 & 6). US 601 discloses “electrodes housed with the electrode chambers can be made of one or more materials including but not limited to carbon cloth, carbon mesh, a solid support coated on at least one side with a conductive material, activated carbon, graphite granules, charcoal, biochar and stainless steel” (see US 601 paragraph 0018) and discloses an example of the reactor comprising “the cathode chamber is half filled with graphite granules with a graphite rod used as a current collector” (see US 601 paragraph 0057; see also US 601 paragraph 0054).
US 601 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. bioelectrochemical system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute an electrode or electrodes of US 039 with a chamber containing graphite granules, conductive material, activated carbon, or biochar, as disclosed in US 601, because US 039 discloses carbon grains but does not provide guidance on a type of carbon grains, and US 601 discloses specific types of granules for using in an electrode/bioelectrochemical reactor, such as graphite granules.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute an electrode or electrodes of US 039 with a chamber containing graphite granules, conductive material, activated carbon, or biochar, as disclosed in US 601, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of providing support for the microbial elements and/or function as an electrode.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute an electrode or electrodes of US 039 with a chamber containing graphite granules, conductive material, activated carbon, or biochar, as disclosed in US 601, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. provide support for the microbial elements and/or function as an electrode.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 039 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 101053170 B1 (hereinafter KR 170) (machine generated English language translation herein cited).
Regarding claim 9, US 039 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 039 discloses the biocathode comprises carbon grains arranged in a container made of stainless steel (see US 039 claim 6 and paragraph 0027).
US 039 does not disclose that the granular support material has a particle size smaller than or equal to 2 cm.
KR 170 discloses “microbial biofuel cell including a graphite granule electrode unit as a positive electrode and a graphite felt electrode unit as a negative electrode is provided to reduce construction costs through a loop structure capable of treating high concentration organic wastes and livestock wastes while generating electric energy” (see KR 170 abstract; see also KR 170 figures 1-4). KR 170 discloses “the anode included in the anode reactor, a graphite granule electrode unit manufactured by interposing a graphite granule (2-7 mm diameter size) having a porosity of 48% in a stainless steel mesh of a cube” (see KR 170 page 6).
KR 170 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. a microbial biofuel cell/bioelectrochemical system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the granular material of US 039 with graphite granule (2-7 mm diameter size), as disclosed in KR 170, because it US 039 discloses carbon grains but does not provide guidance on a type and size of carbon grains, and KR 170discloses specific type and size of granules for using in an electrode/bioelectrochemical reactor, such as graphite granules having a diameter size of 2-7 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the granular material of US 039 with graphite granule (2-7 mm diameter size), as disclosed in KR 170, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of providing support for the microbial elements and/or function as an electrode.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the granular material of US 039 with graphite granule (2-7 mm diameter size), as disclosed in KR 170, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. provide support for the microbial elements and/or function as an electrode.
Related Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure:
US 20100270158 A1 (hereinafter US 158) discloses the saline material compartment 118, which is between the cathode exchange membrane 122 and the anode exchange membrane 120, comprises inlet and outlet structural elements 136, 138 (see US 158 figure 1 and paragraphs 0036-0037).
US 2013/0017414 A1 (hereinafter US 414) discloses a bioelectrochemical system comprising osmotic microbial fuel cell (OsMFC) and/or a microbial desalination cell (MDC), wherein each cell comprises an anode, a saline solution chamber, and a cathode, wherein a biofilm is formed therein (see US 414 abstract, figures 1-5 and paragraphs 0043, 0061-0068, 0072-0081, 0174, 0192). US 414 discloses a water treatment process comprising “delivering an aqueous reaction mixture to an anode chamber comprising one or more bacteria, the aqueous reaction mixture comprising one or more organic compounds that are oxidized by the one or more bacteria, thereby causing electrons to flow from an anode to a cathode; and delivering a draw solution to a saline solution chamber separated from the anode chamber by a forward osmosis membrane, wherein water diffuses across the forward osmosis membrane from the aqueous reaction mixture to the draw solution, thereby diluting the draw solution” (see US 414 claim 12). US 414 discloses that the saline solution chamber, which is between the anode exchange membrane and cathode exchange membrane, comprises an inlet and outlet element (see US 414 figures 2-4 and paragraphs 0076-077). US 414 discloses the system comprises a pumping system (see US 414 paragraphs 0131, 0197-0198). US 414 discloses that the electrodes is composed of activated carbon, graphite, porous graphite, graphite powder, graphite granules, graphite fiber, a conductive polymer, a conductive metal, and combinations of any of these (see US 414 paragraph 0085).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights