Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action based on application 17/266,192 filed on February 5, 2021. The application is a 371 of PCT/AU2019/050827, with priority to Australian application AU 2018-902887 filed 8 August 2018.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 13-18, 20, 27-28, and 31-38 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 .
Status of the Rejection
The §103 rejections of record are maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s arguments filed 29 December 2025 include citations to a literature review article by Convery et al, however, Applicant’s submission was not accompanied by an information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office.
Examiner is entering the Convery reference into record with this action, so the information disclosure requirement is satisfied this time. In the future if Applicant wishes to present other references for the Office’s consideration, we ask they please accompany such submission with an information disclosure statement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 13-15, 17, 20, 27-28, 31-35, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markiewicz et al (US 2018/0205067 A1) in view of Park et al (US 2018/0019495 A1), in further view of King et al (US 5,484,203 A).
Regarding claim 1, Markiewicz teaches an electrochemical flow cell (para [0006]-[0009], "an electrode ... for use in a flow battery system"; figures 12-14 and para [0073]-[0079] describe the electrochemical flow cell system) comprising:
a reaction chamber (figure 12B and 13, the first and second electrodes 10, and the space between them through which electrolyte is flowed, constitute a reaction chamber space; para [0073]-[0075]);
a first electrode and a second electrode (para [0073]-[0079] and figures 12-14, the electrochemical cell includes a first electrode 10 and a second electrode 10; structural details of an individual electrode 10 are shown at figures 7-8);
a separator disposed between the first and second electrodes (para [0073]-[0079] and figures 12-14, separator membrane 114 is disposed between electrodes 10), the separator at least partially defining a first channel within the reaction chamber configured to accommodate a first fluid stream in contact with the first electrode (para [0050]-[0055], and figures 7-8, at least one fluid flow channel 20 is formed at a surface of the first electrode; the flow channel is bounded by the walls of trench 12 which is integral to the electrode 10, and by membrane 114 which is laid atop the trenches (para [0059], [0079]); the flow channel 12 being in the form of a trench with sidewalls 14, to accommodate the flow of electrolyte stream 11 in contact with the electrode 10; figure 13-14 and para [0059] and [0079], membrane 114 is laid over the channeled surface of the first electrode 10, so as to define a boundary of the flow channels) and a second channel within the reaction chamber configured to accommodate a second fluid stream in contact with the second electrode (second electrode 10 has similar flow channel structure to first electrode 10, and the membrane bounds both electrodes in a similar way; para [0050]-[0055], [0059], [0079], figures 1-8 and 13-14),
wherein the separator comprises a permeable membrane that allows electrical communication between the first and second electrodes via the fluid streams (para [0076]-[0077]) while restricting fluid exchange between the fluid streams (para [0059] and [0077], the membrane defines an interface that divides the anolyte from the catholyte; the fact that these are distinctly defined fluid streams clearly implying that the membrane restricts fluid transfer between them), and
wherein the electrochemical flow cell is a continuous flow tubular reactor teaches; and
wherein the separator and second electrode are arranged concentrically and coaxial with a central longitudinal axis of the first electrode teaches;
and wherein the first electrode is a static mixer electrode comprising an electrically conductive integral scaffold (para [0050]-[0051], [0055]-[0057], first electrode 10 is an integral structure having one or more flow channels in it, the flow channels including static mixing structures which mix the electrolyte fluid flowing past them; various static mixing structure shapes are shown in figures 2-8 and 15, para [0057]-[0063]) provided by a lattice of interconnected segments, wherein the interconnected segments define a plurality of splitting structures arranged at a plurality of splitting locations along a length of the first electrode (various static mixing geometries are disclosed; of these, the "X-shaped baffle" structures shown in figures 7 and 15C and para [0062], and the "post-type baffle" structures shown in figures 8 and 15D and para [0063], are each a lattice of interconnected segments, each segment defining a splitting structure such that a plurality of splitting structures are arranged at a plurality of splitting locations along a length of the first electrode ),
adjacent splitting structures, or adjacent modules thereof, are arranged at different angles of rotation about the central longitudinal axis of the static mixer electrode teaches,
such that the static mixer electrode is configured to enhance chaotic advection of the first fluid stream (para [0008], “... causing turbulent flow patterns, chaotic flow patterns”).
Markiewicz does not teach that the wherein the electrochemical flow cell is a continuous flow tubular reactor; wherein the separator and second electrode are arranged concentrically and coaxial with a central longitudinal axis of the first electrode; wherein adjacent splitting structures, or adjacent modules thereof, are arranged at different angles of rotation about the central longitudinal axis of the static mixer electrode.
Park, like Markiewicz, is directed to an electrochemical flow battery (para [0005]-[0007], figures 6-9). Park's battery is configured as a continuous flow tubular reactor (figures 6-9), comprising of a first electrode (figures 6-9, anode current collector 126 and porous conductive media 124 define the first electrode and the flow channel contacting the first electrode), a second electrode (figures 6-9, cathode current collector 114 and porous conductive media 116 define the second electrode, and the porous conductive media also provides a second flow channel), and an ion permeable membrane disposed between the first electrode and second electrode (figure 6-9, membrane 120) to define a first channel contacting the first electrode and a second channel contacting the second electrode, to allow electrical communication between the first and second electrodes via the fluid streams, and to restrict fluid exchange between the fluid streams (para [0061]-[0063]), wherein the separator and second electrode are arranged concentrically and coaxial with a central longitudinal axis of the first electrode (figures 6-9, second electrode 114, 116 and membrane 120 are concentric and coaxial with first electrode 124, 126).
Park teaches that such an arrangement of a flow battery as a continuous tubular reactor with concentrically arranged electrodes and membrane provides a high ratio of membrane surface area to reaction cell volume, thereby attaining a battery with high power output (para [0003]-[0005], [0055]), and that such a cell shape is particularly useful for vehicle batteries because it allows the battery to be designed to fit in constrained spaces (para [0003]-[0006], [0054]-[0055]).
King discloses a static mixer structure adapted for use in a cylindrical conduit (figure 4), wherein the static mixer comprises an integral scaffold provided by a lattice of interconnected segments (col 3 ln 64 – col 4 ln 43 and figure 4-5, mixing elements 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 are each cut so as to define segments (“ears”) 38-43, which interweave to form a lattice; col 4 ln 58-62, the individually formed mixing elements are welded together into an integral scaffold), wherein:
the interconnected segments define a plurality of splitting structures arranged at a plurality of splitting locations along a length of the integral scaffold (col 2 ln 41-55, col 3 ln 33-45, the overlapping segments define “mixing matrices” where fluid flow is split, sheared, and/or recombined),
adjacent splitting structures, or adjacent modules thereof, are arranged at different angles of rotation about the central longitudinal axis of the static mixer (figure 4-5, adjacent splitting modules 46 and 47 are arranged at different angle of rotation about the central longitudinal axis of the mixer),
such that the static mixer is configured to enhance chaotic advection of a fluid stream passing through the conduit (col 3 ln 64 – col 4 ln 4, the static mixer is configured for turbulent mixing).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Markiewicz by arranging the flow battery as a tubular reactor with concentric, coaxial arrangement of the electrodes and separator, as taught in Park, in order to provide a high electrical power density in a compact format that can adapted to useful applications such as electric vehicle batteries.
When adapting the static mixing electrode of Markiewicz to the geometry of a cylindrical tube-shaped reactor, it would have been obvious to modify the shape of the static mixing structures based on the prior art’s disclosure of static mixer geometries that are adapted for effective mixing in cylindrical conduits, such as the static mixer of King, and thereby to arrive at a structure in which the splitting structures are arranged at different angles of rotation about the central longitudinal axis of the static mixer.
The claimed limitations are obvious 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)].
Regarding claim 3, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the electrochemical flow cell according to claim 1, and Markiewicz teaches wherein a diameter of the integral scaffold of the first electrode is approximately equal to a diameter of the first channel (figure 7-8 and para [0062]-[0063], the integral X-shaped scaffold (figure 7 #24) or plus-sign-shaped scaffold (figure 8 #24) spans the entire width and height of the square flow channel, therefore, to the extent a square can be said to have a diameter, the diameter of the scaffold inside a channel is approximately the same as the diameter of the channel; para [0052], the channel may alternatively have a semicircular cross-section, therefore the scaffold structures spanning the channel will have about the same diameter as the channel).
Regarding claim 4, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the electrochemical flow cell according to claim 1, and Markiewicz teaches the first electrode is arranged in contact with the separator (in the electrochemical stack as shown in figure 12B, membrane 114 is immediately adjacent each of the two electrodes 20 with no intervening gasket, frame, or spacer; per para [0059] and [0079], membrane 114 directly contacts protrusions of the first electrode 10).
Regarding claim 6, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the electrochemical flow cell according to claim 1, and Park further teaches the separator and the second electrode are substantially cylindrical (figure 6B, the separator (120) and the second electrode (defined by current collectors 114 and porous conductive media 116) are cylindrical; figures 6-9, para [0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the electrochemical flow cell according to claim 1, and Markiewicz teaches the second electrode forms at least part of a wall of the reaction chamber (best seen in 13, first electrode 10 and second electrode 10, and the fluid flow space between them, form the reaction chamber; the second electrode 10 forms at least part of a wall of said chamber).
Regarding claim 13, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the electrochemical flow cell according to claim 1, and Markiewicz teaches the first electrode comprising the integral scaffold is configured for operating within the first channel to provide a volumetric flow rate for the first fluid stream of from 3.3 mL/min to 16.7 mL/min (figure 15B and 15D, the experimental electrode is configured to operate with 12 flow channels; figure 18 and Table 1 show that the experimental electrode is operable over at least the flow rate range 40 to 200 mL/min. Therefore the electrode is shown to be operable for flow rates of from (40/12 =) 3.3 mL/min to (200/12 =) 16.7 mL/min per individual flow channel), which falls within the claimed range of at least about 0.1 mL/min.
Regarding claim 14, Markiewicz and Park render obvious the electrochemical flow cell according to claim 1, and Markiewicz teaches an electrochemical flow system comprising at least one such electrochemical flow cell (figures 13, 14A, and 17 show an embodiment with one electrochemical flow cell; figure 14B shows an embodiment with a stack of multiple cells in parallel).
Regarding claim 15, Markiewicz and Park render obvious the electrochemical flow cell according to claim 14, and Markiewicz teaches further comprising a second electrochemical flow cell (figure 14B, 20, and para [0075]-[0078], [0089]-[0090], Markiewicz stacks a plurality of similar cells together into a stack, wherein each cell comprises two electrodes and each of those electrodes has the static mixing structure) comprising:
a reaction chamber (figure 12B, 13, and 14B: the first and second electrodes 10, and the space between them through which electrolyte is flowed, constitute a reaction chamber space; para [0073]-[0078]);
a first electrode and a second electrode (para [0073]-[0079] and figures 12-14 are a cell-level view showing that the electrochemical cell includes a first electrode 10 and a second electrode 10; para [0050]-[0055] and figures 1-8 show structural detail of an individual electrode 10);
a separator disposed between the first and second electrodes (para [0073]-[0079] and figures 12-14, separator membrane 114 is disposed between electrodes 10), the separator at least partially defining a first channel within the reaction chamber configured to accommodate a first fluid stream in contact with the first electrode (para [0050]-[0055] and figures 7-8, at least one fluid flow channel 20 is formed at a surface of the first electrode; the flow channel is bounded by the walls of trench 12 which is integral to the electrode 10, and by separator 114 which is laid atop the trenches (para [0059], [0079])) and a second channel within the reaction chamber configured to accommodate a second fluid stream in contact with the second electrode (second electrode 10 has similar flow channel structure to first electrode 10, and the membrane bounds both electrodes in a similar way; para [0050]-[0055], [0059], [0079], figures 7-8 and 13-14),
wherein the separator comprises a permeable membrane that allows electrical communication between the first and second electrodes via the fluid streams (para [0076]-[0077]) while restricting fluid exchange between the fluid streams (para [0059] and [0077], the membrane defines an interface that divides the anolyte from the catholyte; the fact that these are distinctly defined fluid streams clearly implies that the membrane restricts fluid transfer between them), and
wherein each electrode is a static mixer electrode comprising an electrically conductive integral scaffold (para [0050]-[0051], [0055]-[0057], figures 7-8, first electrode 10 has integral static mixing structures within the trenches 12 which mix the electrolyte fluid flowing along channel 20; various static mixing structure shapes are shown in figures 2-8 and 15, para [0057]-[0063]) provided by a lattice of interconnected segments (various static mixing geometries are disclosed; of these, the "X-shaped baffle" structures shown in figures 7 and 15C and para [0062], and the "post-type baffle" structures shown in figures 8 and 15D and para [0063], are each a lattice of interconnected segments) defining a plurality of passage sections configured for enhancing mixing by redistributing the first fluid stream in directions transverse to the main flow by splitting the first fluid stream into a plurality of sub-streams at a plurality of locations along a length of the first electrode (figures 7B and 8B each illustrate how their respective lattice of interconnected segments splits the fluid stream into a plurality of sub-streams and redistributes the fluid flow in directions transverse to the main flow; para [0062]-[0063]),
and wherein a plurality of flow lines connects the first electrochemical flow cell to the second electrochemical flow cell such that the first channel of the first electrochemical flow cell is in fluid communication with the second channel of the second electrochemical flow cell, and the second channel of the first electrochemical flow cell is in fluid communication with the first channel of the second electrochemical flow cell (since each electrode of each cell incorporates all of the structural limitations of both claimed "first electrode" and claimed "second electrode", either electrode of the first cell may be considered the first electrode of the first cell, either electrode of the second cell may be considered the first electrode of the second cell, etc; figure 14B, the anode (first electrode) of the left most cell (first cell) is on the same fluid line as the anode (second electrode) of the right most cell (second cell), and the cathode (second electrode) of the first cell is on the same fluid line as the cathode (first electrode) of the second cell).
Markiewicz does not teach the second electrochemical flow cell is a continuous flow tubular reactor wherein the separator and second electrode are arranged concentrically and coaxial with a central longitudinal axis of the first electrode. However, an electrochemical flow cell having these features is suggested in Park, as discussed above in regard to claim 1. Markiewicz does not teach that, in the second electrochemical flow cell’s static mixer electrode, adjacent splitting structures or modules thereof are arranged at different angles of rotation about the central longitudinal axis of the electrode, however, a static mixer having the claimed feature is suggested by King, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of a tubular reactor wherein the separator and second electrode are arranged concentrically and coaxial with a central longitudinal axis of the first electrode, taught by Park, wherein splitting structures are arranged at different angles of rotation, as taught by King, into Markiewicz's second electrochemical flow cell, for the same reasons it would have been obvious to incorporate the same features from Park and King into the Markiewicz's first electrochemical flow cell (as discussed above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 27, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the method of claim 17, and Markiewicz teaches providing a first and second electrochemical flow cell (figure 14B, 20, and para [0075]-[0078], [0089]-[0090], Markiewicz stacks a plurality of cells together into a stack, wherein each cell comprises two electrodes and each of those electrodes has the static mixing structure) comprising:
a reaction chamber (figure 12B, 13, and 14B: the first and second electrodes 10, and the space between them through which electrolyte is flowed, constitute a reaction chamber space; para [0073]-[0078]);
a first electrode and a second electrode (para [0073]-[0079] and figures 12-14, each electrochemical cell of the stack includes a first electrode 10 and a second electrode 10);
a separator disposed between the first and second electrodes (para [0073]-[0079] and figures 12-14, separator membrane 114 is disposed between electrodes 10), the separator at least partially defining a first channel within the reaction chamber configured to accommodate a first fluid stream in contact with the first electrode (para [0050]-[0055] and figures 7-8, at least one fluid flow channel 20 is formed at a surface of the first electrode; the flow channel is bounded by the walls of trench 12 which is integral to the electrode 10, and by separator 114 which is laid atop the trenches (para [0059], [0079])) and a second channel within the reaction chamber configured to accommodate a second fluid stream in contact with the second electrode (second electrode 10 has similar flow channel structure to first electrode 10, and the membrane bounds both electrodes in a similar way; para [0050]-[0055], [0059], [0079], figures 7-8 and 13-14),
wherein the separator comprises a permeable membrane that allows electrical communication between the first and second electrodes via the fluid streams (para [0076]-[0077]) while restricting fluid exchange between the fluid streams (para [0059] and [0077], the membrane defines an interface that divides the anolyte from the catholyte; the fact that these are distinctly defined fluid streams clearly implies that the membrane restricts fluid transfer between them), and
wherein each electrode is a static mixer electrode comprising an electrically conductive integral scaffold provided by a lattice of interconnected segments (para [0050]-[0051], [0055]-[0057], each electrode 10 is an integral structure having one or more flow channels in it, the flow channels including static mixing structures which mix the electrolyte fluid flowing past them; various static mixing structure shapes are shown in figures 2-8 and 15, para [0057]-[0063]) provided by a lattice of interconnected segments (various static mixing geometries are disclosed; of these, the "X-shaped baffle" structures shown in figures 7 and 15C and para [0062], and the "post-type baffle" structures shown in figures 8 and 15D and para [0063], are each a lattice of interconnected segments), the interconnected segments defining a plurality of splitting structures at a plurality of splitting locations along a length of the electrode (figures 7B and 8B each illustrate how their respective lattice of interconnected segments splits the fluid stream into a plurality of sub-streams and redistributes the fluid flow in directions transverse to the main flow; para [0062]-[0063]),
and wherein a plurality of flow lines connects the first electrochemical flow cell to the second electrochemical flow cell such that the first channel of the first electrochemical flow cell is in fluid communication with the second channel of the second electrochemical flow cell, and the second channel of the first electrochemical flow cell is in fluid communication with the first channel of the second electrochemical flow cell (since each electrode of each cell incorporates all of the structural limitations of both claimed "first electrode" and claimed "second electrode", either electrode of the first cell may be considered the first electrode of the first cell, either electrode of the second cell may be considered the first electrode of the second cell, etc; figure 14B, the anode (first electrode) of the left most cell (first cell) is on the same fluid line as the anode (second electrode) of the right most cell (second cell), and the cathode (second electrode) of the first cell is on the same fluid line as the cathode (first electrode) of the second cell).
As disclosed in King (see above with respect to claim 1), adjacent splitting structures and modules thereof are arranged at different angles of rotation about the central longitudinal axis of the static mixer so that the static mixer is configured to enhance chaotic advection of the first fluid stream.
Regarding claim 28, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the electrochemical flow cell according to claim 1. Markiewicz also teaches a method of electrochemical synthesis of a product (para [0077] and [0087], an embodiment of Markiewicz's method electrochemically oxidizes and reduces quinone species and thereby synthesizes an oxidized/reduced quinone product) comprising:
providing an electrochemical cell (as discussed above with respect to claim 1);
providing a first fluidic reactant to the electrochemical flow cell via a reactant inlet (para [0075]-[0077], Markiewicz operates the cell as a flow battery by flowing through it an electrolyte solution comprising a reactant; para [0077], in one embodiment the reactant comprises a quinone, in another embodiment the reactant comprises a vanadium ion; para [0087]);
operating the electrochemical flow cell, to provide flow and reaction of the at least first fluidic reactant through the static mixer electrode (para [0075]-[0077], [0082], [0087], Markiewicz flows the reactant solution through the cell while oxidizing and reducing the reactant to thereby charge and discharge a flow battery; figure 14 illustrates flowing the reactant through the cell while oxidizing and reducing the reactant; figure 19 shows charge discharge curves of an experimental cell);
and obtaining an output stream comprising a product of a reaction of the at least first reactant (para [0075]-[0077], [0082], [0087], figure 14, reactant streams are outputted from the cell and circulated to anolyte and catholyte tanks 11a/b).
Regarding claim 31, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the electrochemical flow cell according to claim 1, and Markiewicz teaches the static mixer comprises an electrically conductive integral scaffold (para [0050]-[0051], [0055]-[0057], [0072], electrode 10 body is an electrically conductive integral scaffold) and wherein the scaffold is a metal or metal alloy (para [0050], "body 10 can be metal").
Regarding claim 32, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the electrochemical flow cell according to claim 1, and Markiewicz teaches the static mixer electrode comprises an electrically conductive coating (para [0088], "Some embodiments can include electrophoretically coating the electrode core 32 with graphene. This may be done to increase the electrical conductivity of the electrode 10. This may further increase the electrical conductivity while still allowing the electrode 10 to be compatible with a corrosive electrolyte 11").
Regarding claim 33, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the method of claim 17, and Markiewicz teaches the first and second fluid streams comprise liquids (para [0009]).
Regarding claim 34, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the electrochemical flow cell according to claim 1. Markiewicz teaches that the electrode has parallel flow paths in its surface which contain the segments that form the splitting structures, and in drawings and photographs, the height of a flow channel is shown to be roughly the same size as the distance between splits in the fluid flow stream (see figures 7B, 8B, and 15). Markiewicz also discloses that the height of the flow channel is 0.33 cm (para [0087]), suggesting that the distance between splits in the fluid stream is roughly 0.33 cm, i.e. that the fluid stream is split about 300 times per meter of length along a portion of the static mixer electrode.
Markiewicz does not explicitly disclose the distance between splits, or the number of times the fluid flow stream is split in the course of a given distance.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when implementing the static mixer electrode of modified Markiewicz, to design and arrange splitting structures on an appropriate length scale, and, in light of guidance in the form of Markiewicz’s pictorial depiction of structures pitched on the scale of a fraction of a centimeter (figures 7B, 8B, and 15 in light of para [0087]), to arrange the splitting structures at a pitch of one centimeter or less, i.e. such that the fluid stream is split 100 or more times per meter.
Regarding claim 35, Markiewicz modified in view of Park and King renders obvious the electrochemical flow cell of claim 1. Park further teaches that the first channel is defined entirely by an internal surface of the separator (figure 6A-6E, the flow anode space 124 is defined entirely by the interior surface of cylindrical separator 120).
Regarding claim 37, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the electrochemical flow cell of claim 1. Markiewicz teaches forming several different experimental first electrodes with different static mixer geometries (figure 15, para [0080]), and discloses testing the performance of these different first electrodes by inserting each of them in turn into the first channel of the reaction chamber of a redox flow battery test system (para [0083]-[0087], figure 17). It is therefore clearly implied in Markiewicz that the first electrode is configured as a modular insert to be housed in the first channel of the reaction chamber.
Regarding claim 38, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the electrochemical flow cell of claim 1, and Markiewicz teaches the plurality of splitting structures split the first fluid stream into a plurality of sub-streams at said splitting locations (figure 7B and 8B, fluid pathway 20 is split into a plurality of sub streams at the location of the splitting structures 24).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markiewicz and Park as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Krupadanam et al (US 2013/0149573 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Markiewicz and Park render obvious the electrochemical flow system according to claim 14 and Markiewicz further teaches a pump for providing fluidic flow of the fluid streams (figure 14B, pumps 130; para [0075], [0084]); and a power supply for controlling current through, or voltage applied to, the electrodes (para [0075], " A power source or load can be placed into electrical communication with the electrochemical cell(s) 112 to selectively draw electrical power from the flow battery system 100"; figure 19 shows charge/discharge curves for the flow battery). Markiewicz further teaches controlling concentration and flow rate in the system (para [0087], electrolyte is prepared at a fixed concentration; para [0084] and figure 17-18, Markiewicz controllably varies the flow rate of the system and measures the resulting pressure drop). However, Markiewicz does not disclose a controller for controlling these parameters.
Krupadanam is directed to a flow battery system (para [0005]) comprising a first electrode, second electrode, and a membrane separating the first electrode second from the second (para [0015]); a pump for providing fluidic flow of first and second fluid streams through the reaction space of the flow battery (figure 1, para [0013]-[0015], pump 104 circulates a first electrolyte through reactor 102 via supply line 108, feed line 110, return line 112, and circulates a second electrolyte through the reactor via supply line 118, feed line 120, return line 122); a power supply for controlling current through, or voltage applied to, the electrodes (para [0003], [0015]); and a controller (figure 2 control system 130; para [0016]) for controlling flow rate (control system 130 determines the battery's state of charge, differential pressure across the pump, and pump flow rate, calculates a suitable target flow rate for optimal battery efficiency, then adjusts the pump power to reach the desired flow rate; see para [0017]-[0033]). Krupadanam suggests that such a control scheme is beneficial because it would allow the battery to adjust its own output as needed to store and discharge energy more efficiently and keep its state of charge and its charge/discharge rate within safe limits (para [0003]-[0005], [0043]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Markiewicz by incorporating a controller for controlling one or more parameters of the system including flow rate, because Krupadanam teaches that the use of such a controller in a flow battery enables the battery to adjust its flow rate in response to power demand and/or state of charge, and thereby operate more efficiently (para [0003]-[0005], [0043]-[0045]). 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results. The incorporation of a predictable improvement into a known base invention, based on a finding that the prior art contained a comparable device that has been improved in the same way, is prima facie obvious as being part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (MPEP 2143(C)).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markiewicz and Park as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Williams (US 3,859,195 A).
Regarding claim 18, Markiewicz and Park render obvious the method of claim 17, but do not teach said treatment is waste-water treatment, comprising removal of dissolved metal ions from a fluid stream, or recovery of metal from a fluid stream.
Williams teaches an electrochemical flow cell (col 1 ln 10-30; col 2 ln 5-12) comprising an anodic channel containing an anode (figure 1 shows anodic channel 20 containing anode 10; col 5 ln 49-68), a cathodic channel containing a cathode and configured to accommodate a catholyte stream (figure 1, the space between enclosure 11 and separator 23 is the cathodic channel, and the cathode is defined by cathode screens 14 and 15; col 5 ln 11-48), a permeable membrane separating the anodic and cathodic channels (figure 1, separator 23; col 6 ln 1-23), wherein the cathode is a static mixer electrode comprising an electrically conductive static mixer portion defining a plurality of splitting structures that split the catholyte stream into a plurality of sub-streams at a plurality of locations (figure 1, the cathode 14,15 is made of open woven screen, such that the catholyte fluid stream flowing through the cathode (indicated by arrows) splits into sub-streams as it is passing through). Williams further teaches a method of using the cell for removal of metal species from wastewater (col 10 ln 39-49; col 12 ln 8 - col 13 ln 10, “EXAMPLE I ...”, demonstrates removal of copper from wastewater; examples in col 16 ln 6 - col 17 ln 44 demonstrate removal of lead, mercury, and silver). Williams teaches that remediation of metal-contaminated water is an industrial need, one which a cell having a static mixer electrode is particularly well adapted to meet (col 2 ln 5 - col 3 ln 67; col 4 ln 22-57; col 8 ln 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to broaden the utility of Markiewicz's electrochemical cell by using it in a method of removal of metal species from wastewater, as taught in Williams, because Williams teaches that a flow cell having a static mixing electrode, a structure similar to that of Markiewicz's cell, is especially useful in electrochemical treatment of metal-contaminated wastewater (col 2 ln 5 - col 3 ln 67; col 4 ln 22-57; col 8 ln 4-5). Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt obvious variations for use in another field, if there are incentives that would have motivated adaptation of the known device and the variations would have been predictable to one of skill in the art (MPEP 2143(F)).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markiewicz, Park, and King as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Stemmet (US 2013/0330246 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Markiewicz, Park, and King render obvious the electrochemical flow cell of claim 1, but do not disclose how much of the internal volume of the first channel is occupied by the static mixer electrode.
Stemmet is directed to a microfluidic device comprising a process channel, and, disposed within the channel, a plurality of segments (para [0013], “support means”; illustrated in figures 1C and 3A-3C) which define splitting structures to perform static mixing of a liquid flowing through the channel (para [0020]-[0021], [0035]-[0036]). Stemmet teaches that the mixing performance of this mixing structure can be optimized by varying the volume fraction of the channel that is occupied by the splitting structures, and that in a preferred embodiment, the static mixing structures occupy 40% to 60% of the channel volume (para [0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out the invention of modified Markiewicz using a static mixing electrode that occupies a volume in the claimed range of at least about 10% of the internal volume of the first channel, based on the prior art’s teaching that the effectiveness of mixing can be optimized with respect to the volume fraction of its channel that a static mixer structure occupies, and that a volume fraction in the claimed range is effective (Stemmet at para [0020]-[0021]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Markiewicz’s static mixing electrode operates on a microscopic length scale, and King’s static mixer is presumably macroscopic in scale. Applicant argues that fluid dynamics operates differently at microscopic length scales as it does at macroscopic length scales, and therefore King’s teachings regarding static mixers for macroscopic fluid mixing do not suggest that static mixing can be incorporated into a microfluidic device with reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant’s argument, that King’s disclosure of static mixing at macroscopic length scales cannot be relied on to suggest that static mixing structures would be effective in the microscopic device of Markiewicz, is unpersuasive because Markiewicz’s device already has static mixing structures in it. The applied ground of rejection does not rely on King to suggest adding static mixing to Markiewicz, instead it relies on King to suggest mixer shapes that would be appropriate for a cylindrical device geometry.
Applicant’s argument also relies on the premise that Markiewicz’s device is microfluidic in its length scale. This premise is not consistent with the references. Applicant cites to Convery et al (“30 years of microfluidics”, Micro and Nano Engineering, 2, 76-91 (2019)) to argue that King’s disclosure is not a microfluidic device. We note that Convery at left column para 1 defines “microfluidics” to mean systems with a width/height scale between 100 nm and 100 µm. However, Markiewicz’s disclosure is not confined to channel dimensions in the microfluidic length scale (para [0072], “the flow channels 12 may have a width within a range from 75 micrometers to 150 micrometers ... other flow channel width ranges are also contemplated”; para [0087], Markiewicz’s experimental device employs a channel size of 0.33 cm, well outside the microfluidic range).
Applicant argues that the incorporation of King’s static mixer into Park’s battery is nonobvious, because Park’s battery is flexible and King’s static mixer is rigid. This argument is unpersuasive because Park is not the base device that is being modified in this ground of rejection.
Additionally note that the test for obviousness does not require that the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to claim 34, Applicant argues that there is no basis in the reference to suggest that the distance between splits is about 0.33 cm. Applicant argues that the reference’s disclosure of a channel height of 0.33 cm does not in any way suggest what the distance between splits is.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive, because Markiewicz provides SEM photographs of their channel structures which show that the distance between splits is about same order as the channel height (figures 7B, 8B, 15). Therefore the reference’s teaching that the channel height is 0.33 cm provides a suggestion that the distance between splits could be 1 cm or less.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 ET.
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 at (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.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights