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 .
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the inert measurement electrodes”, which lacks antecedent basis, and it is unclear if the inert measurement electrodes are the same or different than the network of measurement electrodes. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-7 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-3, claims 2-3 recite “the one or more inert measurement electrodes”, which lacks antecedent basis, and it is unclear if “the one or more inert measurement electrodes” refer to all or part of the inert measurement electrodes or the network of measurement electrodes. Therefore, the scopes of claims 2-3 are indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “a stable anerobic environment”, and the term “stable” is a relative term which also renders the claim indefinite. The term “stable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instant claim, it is unclear what are the requirements such as temperature, flow, pH, geochemical compositions of the anerobic environment for the environment to be considered as a stable anerobic environment.
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 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gardel et al. (Duty cycling influences current generation in multi-anode environmental microbial fuel cells, Environmental Science and Technology, 2012, 46, 5222-5229). Karra et al. (Stability characterization and modeling of robust distributed benthic microbial fuel cell (DBMFC) system, Bioresource Technology, 2013, 144, 477-484) is used as an evidence for claim 1. Microelectrodes_MI402 (MI-402 flexible Dip-type Reference electrode, Microelectrodes Inc., https://www.microelectrodes.com/product-page/mi-402-flexible-micro-reference-electrode) is used as an evidence for claim 5.
Regarding claim 1, Gardel teaches a microbial monitoring system (a microbial monitoring system as shown in Fig.S1 [System Design and Operation at page 5223]) comprising:
a reference electrode (Ag/AgCl reference electrode in Fig.S1);
a network of measurement electrodes in an environment (15 graphite anode electrodes in Fig.S1 in an aquarium filled with saltmarsh sediment and natural aerated seawater [System Design and Operation at page 5223]);
a high impedance voltage measurement device (potentiostat in Fig.S1) between the reference electrode and each of the measurement electrodes (the potentiostat is configured to measure the open circuit potential [OCP], VOCP, of each anode with respect to the reference electrode, as shown in Figs. 1 and S2 in Gardel; Furthermore, as evidenced by Karra wherein the OCP is measured by a potentiostat [section 2.3 and Fig.2 on page 479 in Karra]; thus the potentiostat is a high impedance voltage measurement device); and
a biofilm attached to all the inert measurement electrodes (biofilm growing on anodes [Assessing Changes in Anode Biofilm Diversity Across Treatments at page 5224; Microbial Community Composition of Anode Biofilms at page 5227 and Fig.5 in Gardel]; graphite anode electrodes are inert measurement electrodes, as evidenced instant claim 3 of this instant application).
Note: Examiner interprets “the inert measurement electrodes” the same as the network of measurement electrodes.
Regarding claim 2, Gardel teaches the microbial monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the one or more inert measurement electrodes comprise one or more of carbon (graphite anode electrodes [System Design and Operation at page 5223]).
Regarding claim 3, Gardel teaches the microbial monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the one or more inert measurement electrodes comprise one or more of graphite or graphene (graphite anode electrodes [System Design and Operation at page 5223]).
Regarding claim 4, Gardel teaches the microbial monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the reference electrode comprises a silver/silver chloride cell (Ag/AgCl reference electrode [MI-402, Microelectrodes Inc.] in Fig.S1 [System Design and Operation at page 5223]).
Regarding claim 5, Gardel teaches the microbial monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the reference electrode comprises a standard reference cell (Ag/AgCl reference electrode [MI-402, Microelectrodes Inc.] in Fig.S1 [System Design and Operation at page 5223]; as evidenced from Microelectrodes_MI402, MI-402 reference electrode utilizes Ag-AgCl internal reference electrodes with 3M KCl filling solution, thus it is a standard reference cell).
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 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardel, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Gu (US 20140048424A1).
Regarding claim 6, Gardel teaches the microbial monitoring system of claim 1, and is silent to wherein the reference electrode is exposed to air.
Gu teaches methods and devices for the detection of corrosive biofilms and microbiologically influenced (MIC) corrosion rates based upon the electrogenicity of the biofilms. The device comprises a passive sensor having at least one first electrode, at least one second electrode, and an external circuit for electrically connecting the first electrode to the second electrode (Abstract). The term “electrical characteristic,” as used herein, refers to an electrical quantity, such as open circuit voltage [para. 0053]. Gu further teaches measuring a high impedance voltage (i.e., open circuit voltage) between a reference electrode (i.e., cathode) exposed in air (see Air in and Air out in Figs. 5b and 6b; the second electrode compartment is configured as an air cathode in Fig.4 [para. 0065]) and a measurement electrode. In another embodiment, Gu teaches wherein Fig. 12 shows that both the measurement electrode and the reference electrode (cathode) are disposed in the environment (i.e., the same medium) [para. 0105]. Thus, Gu teaches wherein the reference electrode is within the environment or is exposed to air in different embodiments.
Gardel and Gu are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of microbial monitoring system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microbial monitoring system in Gardel by exposing the reference electrode to air, as taught by Gu, since Gu teaches it is suitable to expose the reference electrode to the environment or air (Figs. 4-6 and 12 in Gu). Applying a known technique (i.e., the reference electrode is exposed to air as taught by Gu) to a known device (a microbial monitoring system in Gardel) ready for improvement to yield predictable results 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(I)(D)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardel, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Guo et al. (Flame oxidation of stainless steel felt enhances anodic biofilm formation and current output in bioelectrochemical systems, Environ. Sci., Technol., 2014, 48, 7151-7156).
Regarding claim 7, Gardel teaches the microbial monitoring system of claim 1, and is silent to wherein the reference electrode is exposed to a stable anaerobic environment.
Guo teaches a microbial monitoring system as shown in Fig.1 comprising 8 measurement electrodes and one Ag/AgCl reference electrode in an environment (modified M9 medium with sodium acetate) disposed in a microbial BES reactor. The medium was sparged with nitrogen for 30 min to ensure anaerobic conditions, and then inoculated with 50 mL fresh anodic effluent of an existing acetate-fed BES, which is rich in Geobacter. The cathodic chamber was filed with oxygen-free M9 buffer medium (BES setup and operation at page 7152). Thus, Guo teaches wherein the Ag/AgCl reference electrode is exposed to a stable anaerobic environment (the medium in the BES reactor under anaerobic conditions).
Gardel and Guo are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of microbial monitoring system comprising a plurality of measurement electrodes and a common reference electrode connected to a potentiostat for monitoring electrochemical activity of biofilms on the measurement electrodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microbial monitoring system in Gardel to have the reference electrode exposed in a stable anaerobic environment (oxygen-free medium), as taught by Guo, since it would allow to investigate the electrochemical activity of biofilms at the electrodes under the anaerobic conditions ([BES setup and operation] and [Biofilm characterization] at page 7152 in Guo).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: LaFond (Ennoblement of stainless steel in fresh water influenced by manganese oxidizing biofilms, Master thesis of Montana State University, 1999) teaches a microbial monitoring system in Fig.2.2 comprising a network of measurement electrodes and a reference electrode wherein biofilms forming on the measurement electrodes and OCP between each measurement electrode and the reference electrode is measured. Guo et al. (Engineering electrodes for microbial electrocatalysis, Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 2015, 33, 149-159) teaches wherein carbon-based materials are the most commonly used electrodes in BESs, and metallic electrodes such as gold, platinum, titanium and stainless steel have good conductivity and mechanical strength. Faimali et al. (Electrochemical activity and bacterial diversity of natural marine biofilm in laboratory closed-systems, Bioelectrochemistry, 2010, 78, 30-38) teaches a microbial monitoring system comprising a network of measurement electrodes, a reference electrode and a counter electrode in an environment wherein biofilm grows on the measurement SS electrodes and OCP is measurement by a potentiostat. Papavinasam et al. (US6673222B1) teaches a biological activity probe connected to an electrical system for identifying microbiological activity resulting in microbiologically influenced corrosion. Yang (US7466149B1) teaches electronic system and software for multielectrode sensors and electrochemical devices, and Figs. 18-19 show dual sensor coupled multielectrode system for biofilm activity monitoring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V. 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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795