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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency, the word “motor” in all instances should be preceded by the word “electric” or the words “variable-speed electric.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency, the word “motor” in all instances should be preceded by the word “electric” or the words “variable-speed electric.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency, the word “motor” in all instances should be preceded by the word “electric” or the words “variable-speed electric.” 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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the supply of anolyte." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the removal of anolyte." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the supply of catholyte." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the removal of catholyte." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the associated connecting line." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8, 12-15 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the charging and discharging current of the battery." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "terminal voltage of the battery." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the temperature of the electrolyte." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the temperature of the winding of the electric motor." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the winding of the electric motor." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the DC side." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the AC side." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the switching state of the relay." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the frequency of the AC side." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-15 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the amount." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the sign." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the switching state of the relay." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the relay." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the feed unit." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the external direct current supply." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the switching state of the relay." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the relay." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed (assuming all relevant objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as previously described, are overcome).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent Claim 1 requires, among all other limitations, a redox-flow battery comprising (1) a “measuring device” for determining an open circuit voltage, wherein the measuring device comprises at least one “measuring cell” and the instantly claimed at least four “connections,” and (2) a “circulating module,” wherein the circulating module comprises at least one “pump head” and at least two “pump impellers,” wherein at least one “pump impeller” is arranged in the at least one pump head. In particular, Claim 1 also requires that said at least one measuring cell is “integrated in the pump head,” that a connection of said measuring deice is connected to a pressure side of said pump impeller arranged in said pump head, and that an “associated connecting line” is integrated in said pump head.
The closest prior art references relevant to at least independent Claim 1 are Kim et al. (US 2019/0020045), Fukushima et al. (US 2016/0049673), Kumamoto et al. (US 2017/0033391), and Weber (DE 102018119930).
Each of Kim, Fukushima, Kumamoto, and Weber disclose redox flow battery systems.
Kim further discloses measuring an open circuit voltage during charging or discharging of the battery, wherein the state of charge of the battery is determined based on said open circuit voltage measurement (Abstract, [0074]-[0083]). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Kim teaches that the battery comprises pumps (120a, 120b) which circulated anolyte and catholyte.
Fukushima further discloses an entrance open circuit voltage measuring portion that measures an upstream open circuit voltage between the positive electrolyte inside the positive electrolyte outward path and the negative electrolyte inside the negative electrolyte outward path, and an exit open circuit voltage measuring portion that measures a downstream open circuit voltage between the positive electrolyte inside the positive electrolyte return path and the negative electrolyte inside the negative electrolyte return path (Abstract, [0013]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Fukushima teaches that the system comprises pumps (19a, 19b) which pump positive and negative electrolyte through the piping of the system ([0169]).
Kuramoto further discloses a pump control unit which controls the flow rate of pumps, an SOC measuring unit which measures the state of charge of the electrolytes, and a terminal-voltage measuring unit which measures a terminal voltage of the battery (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1, Kuramoto teaches that the battery comprises pumps (40) for circulating anolyte and catholyte through the system ([0051]).
Weber further discloses a double pump unit provided in the battery, wherein the unit comprises two pumps together in the same housing (Figure 1, [0006]).
However, while said references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest redox flow battery systems comprising anolyte/cathode pumps and means for making open circuit voltage measurements, said references neither teach nor suggest any integration of a pump head (comprising at least one pump impeller arranged therein) with a measuring device in the first place, let alone integration in accordance with Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728