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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-5 and 15, it is suggested to amend “the at least one electrode” to - -the at least one sheet-like electrode- - to conform to prior recitation.
In claim 9, it is suggested to amend “to function” to - -configured to function- -.
In claims 11-12, it is suggested to amend “functions” to - -is configured to function- -.
In claims 15-16, it is suggested to amend “a plurality of electrodes” to - -a plurality of sheet-like electrodes- - to conform to prior recitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite the limitation "the electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-8 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0067711) and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0074536).
Regarding claims 1-2, Shiraki teaches a redox flow battery (100) (paragraph [0044]) (see figure 1), comprising:
a cell frame (40) (paragraph [0044]) having a recess (see figure 1) (paragraph [0006]);
at least one sheet-like electrode (i.e., positive electrode, negative electrode) (104, 105) (paragraph [0044]) received in the recess (see figure 1);
a membrane (101) stacked on the cell frame to cover the recess (paragraph [0044]) (see figure 1); and a bipolar current collecting member (i.e., bipolar plate) (41) penetrating the cell frame at the recess and electrically connected to the at least one electrode (see figure 1), and
wherein the cell frame has flow channels communicating with the recess so as to allow a fluid containing an active material to flow through the recess parallel to the membrane (paragraph [0014], [0060]-[0063]) (see figure 1 and 6).
Shiraki does not explicitly articulate the specifics of wherein the at least one electrode is disposed in the recess at an angle where the at least one electrode intersects the membrane or is inclined in a flow direction of the fluid with respect to a plane perpendicular to the flow direction.
However, 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 angle or orientation of the electrode so that is disposed at an angle intersecting the membrane because rearranging known elements is a predictable variation that would have been well within the skill of the ordinary artisan in order to predictably optimize, for instance, electrolyte flow characteristics, reduce pressure drop, adjust the geometry of the electrochemical reaction surface or to conform to particular applications/configuration where the battery is to be used, all of which are recognized and known design parameters in redox flow cell design. Therefore, such limitation represents nothing more than an obvious matter of design choice absent evidence of unexpected results or criticality of the specific orientation. Nonetheless, additional guidance is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee, also directed to a battery (paragraph [0002]), teaches a battery with electrodes having a radial and vertical flow paths (paragraph [0002]). Further, Lee teaches the electrode have a designated angle that serves as an electrolyte path along which an electrolyte may flow paragraph [0021], [0053], claim 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Shiraki to be disposed at an angle, as suggested by Lee, and consequently intersecting the membrane in order to designate an electrolyte path and predictably increase the electrochemical reaction contact surface.
Regarding claim 3, Shiraki teaches the at least one electrode is made of carbon paper, carbon cloth, or carbon felt (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 4-5, Shiraki teaches the bipolar current collecting member includes a bipolar portion penetrating the cell frame and at least one sheet-like current collecting portion made of a conductive material (i.e. carbon plastic – carbon is a conductive material) and electrically connected to the at least one electrode (see figure 1) (paragraph [0006], [0048], [0060], [0063], [0075]).
PNG
media_image2.png
522
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Shiraki teaches the current collecting portion is formed in a porous structure (i.e., carbon plastic – known to be porous) (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Shiraki teaches the bipolar portion is disposed within an opening formed in the recess.
PNG
media_image3.png
516
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Shiraki teaches an electrode support (i.e., protection plate) (50) disposed between the electrode (41) and the cell frame (42) to support the electrode (paragraph [0044], [0060]) (see figure 1).
Regarding claims 11-12, it is noted that such limitations are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus (see MPEP 2114(I)). It is submitted that the apparatus of Shiraki possess the requisite claimed structure (i.e., the electrode support, the current collecting portion), such that it would necessarily follow that the apparatus would be capable of performing the recited functionality.
Regarding claim 13, Shiraki teaches a membrane support (i.e., film cover part) (60) disposed in the recess to support the membrane (see figure 1) (paragraph [0044], [0064]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 14, Shiraki teaches the conductive material comprises carbon (i.e., carbon plastic) (paragraph [0048], [0060], [0063], [0075]).
Regarding claim 15, Shiraki teaches the at least one electrode includes a plurality of electrodes (paragraph [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 16, Shiraki teaches the plurality of electrodes is spaced apart from each other in the flow direction of the fluid (see figure 1) (paragraph [0005]-[0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate either:
all the limitations of claims 1, 4, 7 and 9, or
all the limitations of claim 1, 4, 7-8 and 10.
Applicant may consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance. The prior art, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the combination of features as recited when combining all the limitations of the above claims in (1) or (2).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nakamura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0269665). Nakamura teaches at least one electrode (32, 33) disposed an angle (see figure 8) (see Embodiment 2) (paragraphs [0099]-[0119]). Nakamura teaches the angle increase internal resistance (paragraph [0058]-[0059).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, MILTON I. CANO can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723