UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/503,768
`
`06/05/2017
`
`Naoki YOSHIKAWA
`
`MIYOP0133WOUS
`
`2317
`
`MARK D. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`CLEVELAND, OH 44115
`
`CREPEAU~ JONATHAN
`
`ART UNIT
`1725
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/ 1 1/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdoeket@rennerotto.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/503,768
`Examiner
`JONATHAN CREPEAU
`
`Applicant(s)
`YOSHIKAWA et al.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`1725
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 1/24/19.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—7 and 9—15 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—7 and 9—15 is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)D accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)D All
`
`b)I:l Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190405
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/503,768
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice ofPre-AIA 0r AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`2.
`
`This Office action addresses claims 1—7 and 9—15. The claims are newly rejected under
`
`35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment. Accordingly, this action is made final.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 103
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1, 9—12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Rebouillat et al (US 20140037915) in view of JP 2009—295488.
`
`Regarding claims 1 and 9, Rebouillat et al. is directed to a microbial fuel cell comprising
`
`an electrode comprising a first diffusion layer (6) having water repellency (i.e., polyethylene, see
`
`[0037]), a second diffusion layer (8) supporting a catalyst thereon, and an oxygen permeable
`
`layer (4) interposed between the first and second layers ([0004], [0036] and [0055], Fig. 2). The
`
`second layer includes a sheet like carbon material (graphite, see [0039]). Regarding claim 9, the
`
`fuel cell comprises an anode supporting microorganisms ([0004]). Regarding claims 10—11, the
`
`fuel cell employs a liquid containing organic matter in contact with the second (catalyst) side,
`
`and the first side is exposed to air. Regarding claim 15, the fuel cell can also be considered to be
`
`a “water treatment device.”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/503,768
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`Page 3
`
`Rebouillat does not expressly teach that the cathode has an oxygen reduction catalyst
`
`promoting a reaction between oxygen and hydrogen ions as recited in claim 1, or that the fuel
`
`cell has an ion transfer layer permeable to hydrogen ions or the structure thereof (claims 9 and
`
`14), or that the anode comprises an electrically conductive porous sheet (claim 12).
`
`JP ‘488 is directed to a microbial fuel cell using an air cathode. The cathode comprises
`
`an oxygen reduction catalyst which includes manganese dioxide and a metal, wherein the
`
`catalyst promotes a reaction between hydrogen ions and oxygen ([0037]). In [0075] and [0076],
`
`the reference teaches that an ion—permeable and non—conductive film (porous or woven sheet)
`
`may be used between the anode and cathode, and that the anode may be a porous body formed of
`
`an electrically conductive material.
`
`Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at
`
`the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in
`
`the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their
`
`respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct.
`
`1727 (2007). As such, the use of a metal oxygen reduction catalyst in the cathode as well as an
`
`ion transfer layer as a separating layer and an electrically conductive porous anode sheet in
`
`Rebouillat et al would have been obvious. Further regarding the catalyst, JP ‘488 teaches that
`
`the disclosed catalyst allows the system to obtain high power generation efficiency and is
`
`inexpensive. As such, the artisan would be further motivated to make the combination.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/503,768
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`Page 4
`
`4.
`
`Claims 2—5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Rebouillat et al in view of JP 2009—295488 as applied to claims 1, 9—12, 14 and 15 above, and
`
`further in view of Kuwata et al (US 20140127606).
`
`Rebouillat et al. does not expressly teach that graphene layers in the graphite are arranged
`
`in a direction perpendicular to a stacking direction of the layers, as recited in claims 2 and 13.
`
`Kuwata et al is directed to a microporous layer sheet for a fuel cell electrode. In Figures
`
`3—6, the reference teaches that scale—like graphite (Gf) flakes are oriented in a state of being
`
`parallel to each other, and perpendicular to the stacking direction.
`
`Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at
`
`the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to use the scaly graphite of Kuwata et
`
`al in the second layer of Rebouillat et al. In the abstract, Kuwata et al. teach that the layer sheet
`
`of the invention can ensure gas permeability and drainage performance without lowering
`
`strength. Accordingly, the artisan would be motivated to use the scaly graphite of Kuwata et al
`
`in the second layer of Rebouillat et al. As such, the limitation that graphene layers in the
`
`graphite are arranged in a direction perpendicular to a stacking direction of the layers would be
`
`rendered obvious.
`
`Regarding claim 3, the microporous layer is disclosed as being gas permeable by Kuwata;
`
`therefore, the artisan would be motivated to employ a layer having an ISO air permeance having
`
`an appropriate value. Thus, the claimed range would be rendered obvious.
`
`Regarding claim 4, it would be obvious to use a layer having a relatively low density in
`
`order to ensure the gas permeability. As such, the claimed range would be rendered obvious.
`
`Regarding claim 5, it is noted that Kuwata teaches that “the scale—like graphite
`
`contributes to resistance of the MPL in the plane direction, that is, electrical conductivity
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/503,768
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`Page 5
`
`enhancement thereof in the plane direction” ([003 5]). Accordingly, it would be within the skill
`
`of the art to employ an electrode having a low in—plane resistivity, wherein the resistivity in the
`
`thickness direction would be higher (i.e., 100x as claimed). Therefore, claim 5 would be
`
`rendered obvious.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebouillat et al in
`
`view of JP 2009—295488 as applied to claims 1, 9—12, 14 and 15 above, and further in view of JP
`
`2007—290936.
`
`Rebouillat et al does not expressly teach that the catalyst is supported between graphene
`
`layers in the graphite, as recited in claim 6.
`
`JP ‘936 is directed to a graphite layer that can be used in a fuel cell electrode. In [0022]
`
`it is taught that a metal chloride is intercalated into the graphite (that is, between the graphene
`
`layers), and then reduced to form a metal catalyst.
`
`Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at
`
`the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to use the catalyst and graphite
`
`structure of JP ‘936 in the second layer of Rebouillat et al. In [0022], JP ‘936 teaches that
`
`“catalyst deterioration due to agglomeration of platinum particles is suppressed as much as
`
`possible. As a result, reduction in reaction efficiency during power generation is prevented,
`
`battery life is prolonged, and the effect of reducing the amount of platinum used is excellent.”
`
`Accordingly, the artisan would be motivated to use the catalyst and graphite structure of JP ‘936
`
`in the second layer of Rebouillat et al.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/503,768
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`Page 6
`
`6.
`
`Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebouillat et al in
`
`view of JP 2009—295488 as applied to claims 1, 9—12, 14 and 15 above, and further in view of
`
`Schechter et al (US 20110229742).
`
`Rebouillat et al does not expressly teach that the oxygen permeable layer comprises
`
`silicone, as recited in claim 7.
`
`Schechter et al is directed to a microbial fuel cell. In [0057], it is disclosed that an
`
`oxygen permeable layer 140 in a cathode is preferably formed of silicone rubber.
`
`Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at
`
`the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in
`
`the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their
`
`respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct.
`
`1727 (2007). As such, the use of silicone in Rebouillat et al would have been obvious.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/503,768
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`Page 7
`
`Conclusion
`
`7.
`
`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 extension fee pursuant to 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event,
`
`however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this
`
`final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau Whose telephone number is (571) 272—1299.
`
`The examiner can normally be reached Monday—Friday from 9:30 AM — 6:00 PM EST.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Basia Ridley, can be reached at (571) 272—1453. The phone number for the
`
`organization Where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272—1700. Documents
`
`may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273—8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`