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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23 and 25 in the reply filed on 10/30/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that All the claims share unity of invention by virtue of the use the catholyte having a pH of less than 4 AND the anolyte having a pH of greater than 10, which is a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because several literature discloses the catholyte having a pH of less than 4 AND the anolyte having a pH of greater than 10. For example, the “Air-Breathing Aqueous Sulfur Flow Battery for Ultralow-Cost Long-Duration Electrical Storage” to Li et al. reference explicitly discloses wherein a catholyte has a pH of less than 4 (an acidic catholyte, and a desired catholyte pH value such as using 01M H2S04 = 0.2M H+, thus pH = 0.7 (a pH of less than 4) provides a high cell voltage; page 309, second paragraph; page 312, figures 4C-4D; supplemental information, page 2, figure S1; supplemental information, page 15, table S5) ; and wherein an anolyte has a PH of greater than 10 (an anolyte having a pH of greater than 12; page 309, second paragraph). Therefore, the claims does not comprise a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Please note in the Restriction requirement, it is stated, “The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.”
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/22, 1/10/23, 6/27/25 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 10/11/22 has been considered.
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.
Claim 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the ionomers" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unknown if the ionomers are referring back to the limitation “ion-selective ionomers” or if is referring to a more generic ionomer. Appropriate corrections and/or further clarification are required.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 16, 18, 19, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (Air-Breathing Aqueous Sulfur Flow Battery for Ultra-Cost Long-Duration Electrical Storage).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the Li et al. reference discloses a battery comprising a cathode comprising a cathode electroactive material, wherein the cathode electroactive material comprises at least one of sulfide; anode comprising an anode electroactive material wherein the anode electroactive material comprises at least one of sulfide. The catholyte in contact with the cathode wherein the catholyte not in contact with the anode, otherwise it will short circuit and the anolyte in contact with the anode, wherein the anolyte not in contact with cathode (otherwise the battery will short circuit) since separator membranes are in between (Fig. 2, A and B). The catholyte has a pH of less than 4 (0.1 M H2SO4 i.e. sulfuric acid, Fig. 8A) and anolyte has a pH greater than 10 (pH = 12; under Air Breathing Aqueous Polysulfide Concept).
The Li et al. reference does not explicitly disclose “High voltage metal-free,” however, the limitation has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self- contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951.).
Regarding claim 2, the cathode electroactive material and the anode electroactive material does not have a metal in an oxidation state of zero (indicated by metal+ wherein the metal is excited).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the Li et al. reference discloses a separator disposed between the anolyte and catholyte, wherein the LiSICON separator has ion-selective properties.
Regarding claim 18, the Li et al. reference discloses a sodium sulfate used in the catholyte (Fig. 4).
The Li e ta. reference does not explicitly disclose the sodium sulfate is an additive, however, it is noted that claim limitation “intended use” language such as additive and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 19, the Li et al. reference discloses the anolyte comprise an alkaline electrolyte of lithium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide (Air-Breathing Aqueous Polysulfide Concept)
Regarding claims 23 and 24, the Li et al. reference discloses the battery is characterized by an average discharge potential of from greater than about 2 V – 5 V (Fig. 4C and 4D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(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 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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li et al. (Air-Breathing Aqueous Sulfur Flow Battery for Ultra-Cost Long-Duration Electrical Storage).
Regarding claim 25, the Li et al. reference discloses the catholyte of less than 2 (H2SO4) and anolyte has a pH of greater than or equal to 12 (“To avoid H2S formation at the anolyte, adequately high pH (≥12) is maintained by the addition of a suitable base”). The battery further comprises a separator disposed between the anolyte and the catholyte, wherein the separator has ion-selective properties.
For the range of the pH greater than 12, the pH is anticipated, however, when the pH is equal to 12, it is the Examiner’s position that the amounts in question are so close that it is a prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Air-Breathing Aqueous Sulfur Flow Battery for Ultra-Cost Long-Duration Electrical Storage) in view of Visco et al. (US 2014/0057153).
Regarding claim 6, the Li et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Li et al. reference discloses liquid electrolyte systems. The Li et a. reference does not explicitly disclose an anolyte and a catholyte are gelled electrolyte solutions. However, the Visco et al. reference discloses liquid electrolyte exhibit bad ion cycling behavior (P7). The Visco et al. reference provides improvements among many features and includes gel anolytes and gel catholytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate gel anolytes and gel catholytes disclosed by the Visco et al. reference for the liquid anolytes and catholytes disclosed by the Li et al. reference in order to provide improved batteries. A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 7, the Li et al. reference in view of Visco (herein referred to the modified Li et al. reference) discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Li et al. reference discloses liquid systems comprising cathode electroactive material comprising sulfides but does not explicitly disclose lithium manganese oxide. However, the Visco et a. reference discloses improved performance on liquid battery systems can be obtained by incorporating convention Li-ion battery components such as cathodes and electrolytes (P62). The Visco reference disclose lithium manganese oxides and sulfide cathode materials are used for the very same purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate lithium manganese oxide for sulfides in a liquid battery system for an improved battery.
Regarding 9 the Li et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Li et al. reference discloses liquid electrolyte battery systems. The Li et a. reference does not explicitly discloses comprising an anode with a Li-C. However, the Visco et a. reference discloses improved performance on liquid battery systems can be obtained by incorporating convention Li-ion battery components such an anode with a Li-C, wherein the C is a conductive graphite (mesocarbon microbeads) material with the anode electroactive material (P72-73). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Li-C for anodes disclosed by the Visco et al. reference in a liquid battery system disclosed by the Li reference for an improved battery.
It is noted that claim 9 comprises product-by-process claim limitations such as “mixed.” “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since the anode electroactive material is the same as to that of the Applicant’s, Applicant’s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Air-Breathing Aqueous Sulfur Flow Battery for Ultra-Cost Long-Duration Electrical Storage) in view of Visco et al. (US 2014/0057153) in further view of Loveridge et al. (US Publication 2012/0094178).
Regarding claim 8, the Li et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Li et al. reference discloses liquid systems with anolytes comprises binders such as PVdF (Visco; P74), however, does not explicitly disclose the a cellulose based binder. However, the Loveridge et al. reference discloses binders known to be incorporated in electrode materials are PVdF and carboxymethyl cellulose (P52). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate known binders such as carboxymethyl cellulose for PVdF disclosed by the Loveridge et al. reference for the PVdF binder used in the Li et al. reference. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Air-Breathing Aqueous Sulfur Flow Battery for Ultra-Cost Long-Duration Electrical Storage) in view of Visco et al. (US 2014/0057153) in further view of Suk et al. (KR 2002-0077554).
Regarding claim 10, the Li et al. reference discloses liquid electrolyte systems. The Li et a. reference does not explicitly disclose an anolyte and a catholyte are gelled electrolyte solutions. However, the Visco et al. reference discloses liquid electrolyte exhibit bad ion cycling behavior (P7). The Visco et al. reference provides improvements among many features and includes cathodes with lithium metal oxides but does not explicitly disclose additive of cobalt hydroxide. However, the Suk et al. reference discloses lithium metal oxides with an additive of cobalt hydroxide improves excellent cycle lifetime property and thermal stability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to includes an additive of cobalt hydroxide for cathodes with lithium metal oxide disclosed by the Suk et al. reference for the cathode of lithium metal oxide with an improvement over liquid systems disclosed by the Visco et al. for the liquid systems disclosed by Li in order to provide improved safety and the life span over known liquid electrolyte systems.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Air-Breathing Aqueous Sulfur Flow Battery for Ultra-Cost Long-Duration Electrical Storage) in view of Visco et al. (US 2014/0057153) in further view of Suk et al. (KR 2002-0077554) in furthest view of Loveridge et al. (US Publication 2012/0094178).
Regarding claim 11, the Li et al. reference discloses liquid electrolyte systems. The Li et a. reference does not explicitly disclose an anolyte and a catholyte are gelled electrolyte solutions. However, the Visco et al. reference discloses liquid electrolyte exhibit bad ion cycling behavior (P7). The Visco et al. reference provides improvements among many features and includes cathodes and a current collector but does not explicitly disclose the cathode comprising binders. The Suk et a. reference discloses binders are needed to bind the cathode composition with the current collector to fix the cathode composition with current collector. The Suk et al. reference discloses PVDF and PVC are used as binders. However, does not disclose a binder comprising cellulose. The Loveridge et al. reference discloses binders known to be incorporated in electrode materials are PVdF and carboxymethyl cellulose (P52). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate known binders such as carboxymethyl cellulose for PVdF disclosed by the Loveridge et al. reference for the PVdF binder used in the Li in view of Visco in further view of Suk reference. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Air-Breathing Aqueous Sulfur Flow Battery for Ultra-Cost Long-Duration Electrical Storage) in view of Visco et al. (US 2014/0057153) in further view of Suk et al. (KR 2002-0077554) in furthest view of Shelikeri et al. (Investigation of Pre-lithiation in Graphite and Hard-Carbon Anodes Using Different Lithium Source Structures).
Regarding claim 14, the Li et al. reference discloses liquid electrolyte systems. The Li et a. reference does not explicitly disclose an anolyte and a catholyte are gelled electrolyte solutions. However, the Visco et al. reference discloses liquid electrolyte exhibit bad ion cycling behavior (P7). The Visco et al. reference provides improvements among many features and includes cathodes with lithium metal oxides, binders and additive; the anode comprises Li-C components but does not explicitly disclose cathode comprising 1-99 wt% of electroactive material and 1-99 wt% conductive material, 0-30 wt% additives and an anode comprising 1-99 wt% electroactive material and 1-99 wt%. However, the Suk et al. reference discloses -99 wt% of electroactive material and 1-99 wt% conductive material, 0-30 wt% additives to improve excellent cycle lifetime property and thermal stability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate 99 wt% of electroactive material and 1-99 wt% conductive material, 0-30 wt% additives disclosed by the Suk et al. reference for cathode materials as an improvement disclosed by the Visco et al. reference over solely liquid systems disclosed by the Li et al. reference in order to provide improved safety and the life span over known liquid electrolyte systems.
In addition, the Shelikeri et al. discloses anodes comprising lithium-carbon comprises the formula of LiC6 that positively effects cycle life and electrode processing cost. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effecting filing date of the invention to incorporate LiC6 (calculated to 99 wt% of electroactive material and 1-99 wt% conductive material) disclosed by the Shelikeri et al. for the lithium-carbon material disclosed by Visco et al. in view of the Li reference for enhancements the battery.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Air-Breathing Aqueous Sulfur Flow Battery for Ultra-Cost Long-Duration Electrical Storage) in view of Yadav et al. (WO2021/133898).
Regarding claim 21, the Li et al. discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Li et al. reference is silent in disclosing an indium hydroxide additive for the anolyte, however, the Yadav et al. reference discloses an indium hydroxide additive for the anolyte to improve the battery properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporated indium hydroxide additive to an anolyte of a battery to improve the battery properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752