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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted February 11, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 5, 8, 15, 23, and 24 are cancelled, claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, and 16 are amended, and claims 17-22 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, and 16 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 3 recites “each cell being comprising at least one electrode”. It is suggested that this line be amended to recite “each cell comprising at least one electrode”.
Regarding claim 6, line 1 recites “wherein a at least”. It is suggested that this line be amended to recite “wherein an at least”.
Regarding claim 7, line 1 recites “wherein a at least”. It is suggested that this line be amended to recite “wherein an at least”.
Regarding claim 4, “fluid-tight manner” describes the connection and is itself not a noun or structural element. The claim appears to attempt to limit the material/structure of a description rather than a structural element present in the battery.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, and 16 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.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 16, claim 1 recites “a fluid-tight manner” and claims 2-4 and 16 recite “the fluid-tight manner”. It is noted that “a fluid-tight manner” describes the connection and is itself not a noun or structural element. Therefore, it is unclear what structure is implied by “a fluid-tight manner” followed by recitations of “the fluid-tight manner”.
For the purpose of examination, “a fluid-tight manner” and “the fluid-tight manner” are interpretated as the referred to structural elements being fluid-tight, pending further clarification from applicant. It is suggested that “a fluid-tight manner” be amended to “a fluid-tight connection”.
Claims 6-7 and 9-14 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear where the “at least one materially-bonded connection” is located and claims 1 and 6 lack a recitation of any “materially-bonded connection”. It appears that claim 7 is meant to be dependent from claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation "the passage openings" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one cell frame" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12 and 13 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bitner (US 2019/0157700 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bitner teaches a redox flow battery (abstract) having at least one cell (cells, [43]), wherein a cell is constructed of two half-cells ([43]), with each half-cell having at least one half-cell interior space for receiving an electrolyte (half-cell interior space [43]), each cell being assigned at least one electrode (electrode 11, Fig. 4, [43]) and at least one membrane (membrane 12, Fig. 4, [43]), and at least one electrode and at least one membrane being arranged in a stack (Fig. 4), wherein at least one electrode and at least one membrane are at least partially connected in a fluid-tight manner (liquid-tight manner [43]).
Bitner further teaches the at least one electrode and the at least one membrane being at least partially directly connected to one another in a fluid-tight manner with at least one of the half-cell interior space being at least partially sealed in a fluid-tight manner or the at least one electrode and the at least one membrane being at least partially connected to at least one side plate in a fluid-tight manner (Fig. 4 [43]).
Regarding claim 2, Bitner teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Bitner further teaches the at least one electrode and the at least one membrane being each at least partially connected in a fluid-tight manner laterally ([43]).
Regarding claim 3, Bitner teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Bitner further teaches the at least one electrode and the at least one membrane being each at least partially connected in a fluid-tight manner to at least one side plate (cell frame member) ([43]).
Regarding claim 4, Bitner teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Bitner further teaches the fluid-tight manner being a materially-bonded connection (casting medium [43]).
Regarding claim 6, Bitner teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Bitner further teaches an at least one at least partially fluid-tight half-cell interior space (half-cell interior spaces 4, Fig. 4) being formed between the at least one electrode, the at least one membrane, and fluid-tight connections between the at least one electrode and the at least one membrane (Fig. 4 [43]).
Regarding claim 7, Bitner teaches all features of claims 1 and 6, as described above. Bitner further teaches at least one materially-bonded connection being an adhesive bond (casting medium [43]), the casting medium is cured and seals gaps between the electrode and membrane).
Regarding claim 9, Bitner teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Bitner further teaches at least one half-cell has at least one cell frame (cell frame elements 7, 8, 9, 10 Fig. 4 [43]) and at least one cell frame is stacked with at least one member and at least one electrode (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Bitner teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Bitner further teaches the at least one half-cell interior space having at least one electrolyte feed (inflow duct 13, 14 Fig. 4, [43]) and at least one electrolyte discharge (outflow duct 15, 16 Fig. 4, [43]) formed by at least one opening in at least one fluid-tight connection formed between the at least one membrane and the at least one electrode (bores provided in cell frame elements [43]).
Regarding claims 11-13, Bitner teaches all features of claims 1 and 9, as described above. Bitner further teaches at least one of the half-cells has at least one electrolyte feed (elements 17 and 19, Fig. 6) and one electrolyte discharge (elements 18 and 20, Fig. 6) formed at least partially by at least one cavity in a cell frame (openings 19, 20 Fig. 6, [45]) and a passage opening arranged laterally in the cell frame (connecting ducts 17, 18 [45], Fig. 6).
Bitner teaches a cell frame formed by at least two cell frame elements (cell frame elements 7, 8, 9, 10 [43]; Fig. 4).
Bitner further teaches at least one electrolyte feed and at least one electrolyte discharge formed at least partially by at least one free space between at least two cell frame elements ([46]).
Bitner further teaches the at least one electrolyte feed being connected to at least one electrolyte feed line (inflow duct 13, 14 Fig. 4, [43]), at least one electrolyte discharge connected to at least one electrolyte discharge line (outflow duct 15, 16 Fig. 4, [43]), and that at least one electrolyte feed line and at least one electrolyte discharge line extends outside a stacking surface of the cell frame (the inflow and outflow ducts supply electrolyte to the half-cells, wherein the electrolyte is supplied from an external source [24] ).
Regarding claim 14, Bitner teaches all features of claim 1 and 3, as described above. Bitner further teaches at least one electrolyte feed line and at least one electrolyte discharge line being formed by at least one cavity in at least one side plate (inflow and outflow ducts formed in cell frame elements [43]).
Regarding claim 16, Bitner teaches all features of claims 1 and 9, as described above. Bitner further teaches:
the at least one cell frame having at least one electrolyte feed (inflow duct, [43]) and at least one electrolyte discharge (outflow duct, [43])
and at least one cell frame at least partially forming at least one electrolyte feed line and at least one electrolyte discharge line (connecting ducts 17, 18 Fig. 6, [44])
and the at least one electrolyte feed and the at least one electrolyte discharge being connected in a fluid-tight manner to the electrolyte feed line and the electrolyte discharge line, respectively (Fig. 6)
Response to Arguments
Response – Drawings Objections
The objections to the drawings are overcome by applicant’s amendments to the drawings in the response received on February 11, 2026. The objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented in the Non-Final Office Action dated November 12, 2025 are overcome by applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response received February 11, 2026. However, new rejections, necessitated by applicant’s amendments, are presented above.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments filed February 11, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that “Bitner does not disclose the feature of a direct fluid-tight connection between the membrane and an electrode or a direct fluid-tight connection between the membrane and the electrode and a side plate”, since Bitner discloses cell frame members that are used for sealing.
This argument is not persuasive. Bitner teaches the electrode and the membrane at least partially directly connected to one another in a fluid-tight manner via the casting medium (element 5, Bitner Fig. 4) and the electrode and membrane at least partially directly connected to a side plate (cell frame member 8, Bitner Fig. 4) in a fluid-tight manner.
Even though Bitner discloses cell frame members that contribute to sealing, the presence of these cell frame members does not exclude the electrode and the membrane from being partially directly connected in a fluid tight manner to each other. Additionally, it is noted that instant claim 1 does not exclude the presence of cell frame members.
Response – Double Patenting
Applicant’s arguments filed February 11, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 12 of the response, Applicant states that the specification of Grosse “discloses that it is intended to reduce the occurrence of shunt currents” and that the present application “is directed to a fluid tight connection of the membrane and the electrode”. Applicant further states that “the electrolyte sub-lines of the reference application are not mentioned in the present application”.
These arguments are not persuasive. It is noted that double patenting rejections are based on a comparison of claims and not based on a comparison of specifications (MPEP 1504.06). Although, Grosse claims additional elements not claimed in instant claim 1, Grosse in view of Bitner does claim all features present in instant claim 1, as described above.
However, the provisional rejection of claim 1 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/132,758 (Grosse) in view of Bitner (US 2019/0157700 A1) is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received February 11, 2026. This rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seipp (US 2016/0164112 A1): appears to disclose a redox flow battery comprising cell frame elements, a membrane, two electrodes, and channels that provide different electrolyte solutions to inner spaces of the cell (abstract).
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 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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights