DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 11-36 are pending.
Claims 29-36 are new.
Claims 11, 25, and 27 are amended.
This Action is Made Final.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Applicant argues that the combination of Lu and He does not teach a plurality of anodes, wherein each of the plurality of anodes is arranged between a cathode assembly. The applicant is correct that this limitation is not disclosed by Lu or He, however Liu et al (US 2015/0349350), as previously cited teaches a microbial fuel cell comprising a plurality of anodes, wherein each of the plurality of anodes is arranged between a cathode assembly (see fig. 3).
The double patenting rejections are withdrawn in view of the approved terminal disclaimers.
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) 11-16, 18-24, 26-30 and 32-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al, the article “Long-term performance of a 20-L continuous flow microbial fuel cell for treatment of brewery wastewater” in view of Liu et al (US 2015/0349350).
Regarding Claim 11:
Lu teaches the system for energy generation and wastewater treatment, comprising: a plurality of modular microbial fuel cell (MFC) devices (two MFCs) (see pg. 3, right column 2nd paragraph) to bioelectrochemically process wastewater by concurrently generating electrical energy and digesting organic contaminants and particulates in the wastewater to yield a treated water (MFC simultaneously treat wastewater and recover energy) (see pg. 2, left column, 2nd paragraph), wherein at least two of the modular MFC devices of the plurality of modular MFC devices are configured in a series arranged in a single horizontal plane along a vertical direction (figure shows two MFC in a single horizontal plane) (see fig. 1 d). Alternatively Lu does not teach that the that the MFCs are in a single horizontal plane along the vertical direction. However, the orientation of the MFCs with respect to each other does not change their function or mode of operation, therefore one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to rearrange at least two of the MFCs and place them in a single horizontal plane along a vertical direction. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Lu does not teach wherein each modular MFC device of the plurality of modular MFC devices comprises a housing and a bioelectrochemical reactor that is encased within the housing, wherein the bioelectrochemical reactor includes a plurality of anodes, wherein each of the plurality of anodes is arranged between a cathode assembly
Liu teaches a modular MFC, wherein each modular MFC device comprises a housing (space between endplates 34 and 34’) (see fig. 3, para. 0073 and 0071) and a bioelectrochemical reactor (microbial fuel cell) (see para. 0073) that is encased within the housing, wherein the bioelectrochemical reactor includes a plurality of anodes(anode 42 and 42’) (see para. 0071, 0073, fig. 3), wherein each of the plurality of anodes is arranged between a cathode assembly (cathode components 36 and 36’) (see para. 0073, fig. 3).
Lu and Liu are analogous inventions in MFC devices for treating wastewater. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the modular MFCs of Lu with the modular MFCs of Liu because it is the simple substitution of a known MFC with another known MFC, obviously resulting in wastewater treatment and power generation, with an expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 12:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11.
Lu does not teach a wastewater pretreatment system to pre-treat raw wastewater by removing solid particles and produce a pre-treated wastewater to be outputted from the wastewater pretreatment system and received as the wastewater by the plurality of modular MFC devices.
Liu further teaches a wastewater pretreatment system to pre-treat raw wastewater by removing solid particles and produce a pre-treated wastewater that that is outputted from the wastewater pretreatment system and a microbial fuel cell to process the pre-treated wastewater (see para. 0016, 0081).
Lu and Liu are analogous inventions in the art of microbial fuel cells. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the pretreatment system of Liu, upstream of the fuel cell of Lu because it is the simple addition of a known treatment device to a known system, obviously resulting in pre-treated water The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no
more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 13:
Lu, as previously modified, teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the wastewater pretreatment system includes a degritting device (screen) (see Liu para. 0081) to filter solid matter having one or both of a large size of 1 cm or greater and a large mass of 50 g or greater (a screen will remove material greater in size than the holes in the screen, therefore it will inherently remove solid matter having a size of 1 cm or a size greater than 1 cm).
Regarding Claim 14:
Lu, as previously modified, teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the wastewater pretreatment system includes one or more equalization tanks (equalization) to receive and collect the degritted wastewater and modulate a steady organic load and flow of the pre-treated wastewater (see Liu para. 0081).
Regarding Claim 15:
Lu, as previously modified, teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the wastewater pretreatment system includes one or more chemical, physical or biological (digestion) pre-treatment devices to remove unwanted chemical species including one or more of sulfur species, grease or oil (see Liu para. 0081).
Regarding Claim 16:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11, wherein each modular MFC device has a first dimension in a flow direction of fluid through the modular MFC device that is larger than a second dimension perpendicular to the first dimension (see Liu fig. 3) (dimension between inlet 30 and outlet 32 is larger than the perpendicular dimensions), wherein the housing includes an input hole (inlet 30) and output hole (outlet 32) arranged on opposing sides of the housing along the flow direction (see Liu fig. 3, para. 0070), and wherein the housing includes a first opening and a second opening (openings in endplates) on opposing sides of the housing perpendicular to the flow direction that allow for air flow into the bioelectrochemical reactor to provide oxygen to the cathode assembly (see Liu fig. 3 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
671
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the cathode assembly includes two gas-diffusion cathodes (36 and 36’) separated on two sides of the plurality of anodes and arranged longitudinally along a flow direction of fluid through the bioelectrochemical reactor, the gas- diffusion cathodes (gas diffusion layer) able to allow oxygen to permeate into the fluid within the bioelectrochemical reactor (see Liu fig. 3, para. 0011, 0073).
Regarding Claim 19:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of the modular MFC devices are arranged in a hydraulic series, wherein a first modular MFC device receives the wastewater and bioelectrochemically processes the wastewater to output a first treated water that is received at a second modular MFC device, which bioelectrochemically processes the first treated water to output a second treated water that is outputted from the system or received at a next modular MFC device of the plurality of modular MFC devices (MFC devices are connected in series) (see Lu, fig. 1d).
Regarding Claim 20:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 19, wherein the at least two of the modular MFC devices that are configured in the series arranged in the single horizontal plane along the vertical direction include the first modular MFC device and the second modular MFC device (see Lu fig. 1d).
Regarding Claim 21:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 19.
Lu does not teach wherein the plurality of modular MFC devices are arranged in the hydraulic series in at least two groups, where a first group includes an arrangement of modular MFC devices in the single horizontal plane and a second group includes an arrangement of modular MFC devices in multiple vertical planes.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include at least two groups of MFC devices in series because it is a simple duplication of parts, without changing the function of the devices, obviously resulting in additional treatment of the wastewater. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
It would have further been obvious to place a first group in a single horizontal plane that the second group in multiple vertical planes because it is the mere rearrangement of parts without changing the function of the device. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 22:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11, wherein all of the modular MFC devices of the plurality of modular MFC devices are configured in the series arranged in the single horizontal plane along the vertical direction (see Lu fig. 1 d).
Regarding Claim 23:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein at least one modular MFC device of the plurality of modular MFC devices include a double reactor configuration, the double reactor configuration including two of the bioelectrochemical reactors encased in the housing of the at least one modular MFC device. Liu further teaches that any suitable number of anodes and cathodes can be used (see para. 0056). It would therefore have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a double reactor configuration because it is a simple duplication of parts (anodes and cathodes) without changing the function of the device and Liu teaches that the number of anodes and cathodes can be adjusted. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 24:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11.
The combination does not teach wherein at least one modular MFC device of the plurality of modular MFC devices include a triple reactor configuration, the triple reactor configuration including three of the bioelectrochemical reactors encased in the housing of the at least one modular MFC device. However it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add an additional anode and cathode assembly to housing because it is a mere duplication of parts, without changing the function of the device and obviously resulting in a longer flow path for the wastewater. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 26:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the modular MFC devices are operable to clean the wastewater and yield the treated water under a flow rate of at least 100 mL/min and/or at least 120 L/day for at least 10 consecutive hours of operation. However the operable flow rate is dependent on the size of the device. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the size of the device, and therefore operable flow rate, in order to treat the amount of water entering the system. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further the operable flow rate is a method limitation dependent on the quality of water entering the system and the desired level of treatment, only adding patentable weigh to the extent that the prior art system must be capable of the same flow rate. As it would be obvious to adjust the size to be capable of treating at least 100 ml/min this limitation is obvious in view of the prior art.
Regarding Claim 27:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more modular MFC device is operable to generate the electrical energy and produce the treated water with net-zero energy consumption. The energy consumption is a method limitation dependent on the process configurations of the device (such as flow rate and wastewater COD). As the system of Lu, as modified, could treat different water sources it would be capable of a net-zero energy consumption.
Regarding Claim 28:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11, further comprising: a water collection system (outflow tank) to receive the treated water from the plurality of modular MFC devices and store the treated water and/or route the treated water from the system (see Lu fig, 1d).
Regarding Claim 29:
Lu teaches the system for energy generation and wastewater treatment, comprising: a plurality of modular microbial fuel cell (MFC) devices (two MFCs) (see pg. 3, right column 2nd paragraph) to bioelectrochemically process wastewater by concurrently generating electrical energy and digesting organic contaminants and particulates in the wastewater to yield a treated water (MFC simultaneously treat wastewater and recover energy) (see pg. 2, left column, 2nd paragraph), wherein at least two of the modular MFC devices of the plurality of modular MFC devices are configured in a series arranged in a single horizontal plane along a vertical direction (figure shows two MFC in a single horizontal plane) (see fig. 1 d). Alternatively Lu does not teach that the that the MFCs are in a single horizontal plane along the vertical direction. However, the orientation of the MFCs with respect to each other does not change their function or mode of operation, therefore one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to rearrange at least two of the MFCs and place them in a single horizontal plane along a vertical direction. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Lu does not teach wherein each modular MFC device of the plurality of modular MFC devices comprises a housing and a bioelectrochemical reactor that is encased within the housing, wherein the bioelectrochemical reactor includes a plurality of anodes arranged between a cathode assembly including at least two cathodes separated on opposing sides of the plurality of anodes and adjacent to a first set of opposing sides of the housing.
Liu teaches a modular MFC, wherein each modular MFC device comprises a housing (space between endplates 34 and 34’) (see fig. 3, para. 0073 and 0071) and a bioelectrochemical reactor (microbial fuel cell) (see para. 0073) that is encased within the housing, wherein the bioelectrochemical reactor includes a plurality of anodes (anode 42 and 42’) (see para. 0071, 0073, fig. 3), arranged between a cathode assembly (cathode components 36 and 36’) including at least two cathodes separated on opposing side of the plurality of anode and adjacent to a first set of opposing sides of the housing (see para. 0073, fig. 3).
Lu and Liu are analogous inventions in MFC devices for treating wastewater. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the modular MFCs of Lu with the modular MFCs of Liu because it is the simple substitution of a known MFC with another known MFC, obviously resulting in wastewater treatment and power generation, with an expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 30:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 29, wherein each modular MFC device has a first dimension in a flow direction of fluid through the modular MFC device that is larger than a second dimension perpendicular to the first dimension (see Liu fig. 3) (dimension between inlet 30 and outlet 32 is larger than the perpendicular dimensions), wherein the housing includes an input hole (inlet 30) and output hole (outlet 32) arranged on second set of opposing sides of the housing along the flow direction (see Liu fig. 3, para. 0070), and wherein the housing includes a first opening and a second opening (openings in endplates) on the first set of opposing sides of the housing perpendicular to the flow direction that allow for air flow into the bioelectrochemical reactor to provide oxygen to the cathode assembly (see Liu fig. 3 annotated below).
Regarding Claim 32:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 29, wherein the cathode assembly includes two gas-diffusion cathodes (36 and 36’) separated on two sides of the plurality of anodes and arranged longitudinally along a flow direction of fluid through the bioelectrochemical reactor, the gas- diffusion cathodes (gas diffusion layer) able to allow oxygen to permeate into the fluid within the bioelectrochemical reactor (see Liu fig. 3, para. 0011, 0073).
Regarding Claim 33:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 29, wherein the plurality of the modular MFC devices are arranged in a hydraulic series, wherein a first modular MFC device receives the wastewater and bioelectrochemically processes the wastewater to output a first treated water that is received at a second modular MFC device, which bioelectrochemically processes the first treated water to output a second treated water that is outputted from the system or received at a next modular MFC device of the plurality of modular MFC devices (MFC devices are connected in series) (see Lu, fig. 1d).
Regarding Claim 34:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 33, wherein the at least two of the modular MFC devices that are configured in the series arranged in the single horizontal plane along the vertical direction include the first modular MFC device and the second modular MFC device (see Lu fig. 1d).
Regarding Claim 35:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 33
Lu does not teach wherein the plurality of modular MFC devices are arranged in the hydraulic series in at least two groups, where a first group includes an arrangement of modular MFC devices in the single horizontal plane and a second group includes an arrangement of modular MFC devices in multiple vertical planes.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include at least two groups of MFC devices in series because it is a simple duplication of parts, without changing the function of the devices, obviously resulting in additional treatment of the wastewater. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
It would have further been obvious to place a first group in a single horizontal plane that the second group in multiple vertical planes because it is the mere rearrangement of parts without changing the function of the device. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 36:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 29, wherein all of the modular MFC devices of the plurality of modular MFC devices are configured in the series arranged in the single horizontal plane along the vertical direction (see Lu fig. 1 d).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al, the article “Long-term performance of a 20-L continuous flow microbial fuel cell for treatment of brewery wastewater” in view Liu et al (US 2015/0349350) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Feng et al (CN 104466216, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 25:
Lu, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11.
The combination does not teach wherein the wastewater is gravity-fed through a feeder box to at least one of the one or more modular MFC devices. It is noted that the claims are directed to a system, not a method. Gravity-fed is a method limitation and only adds patentable weight to the extent that the prior art must be capable of the same function.
Feng teaches wastewater gravity-fed through a feeder box (high-level water tank) to at least one modular MFC device (see para. 0054).
Lu, as modified, and Feng are analogous inventions in the art of MFCs for wastewater treatment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the feeder box (high-level water tank) of Feng to the system of Lu because it is the simple addition of a known feeding device to a known system, obviously resulting in gravity flow into the modular MFC devices, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims would be allowable in view of the closest prior art, Lu and Liu. The combination of Lu and Liu does not teach “an anode of the plurality of anodes includes carbon fibers that protrude from an interior cylinder”. Although anodes that include carbon fibers that protrude from an interior cylinder are well known in the art (see, for example He pg. 352 section 3.1, Carbon fiber brushes) it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify an anode of Lu, as modified by Liu to a cylinder because the microbial fuel cell of Liu is designed as a sandwich structure (See Liu para. 0079, 0096) with flat/sheet like anodes (see Liu para. 0014, fig. 3) and modifying the shape of the anode would extensive redesign of the apparatus without any known motivation in this or related prior arts.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 5/5/2026
Prosecution Insights