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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/18/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 15 states “Such configuration of the battery may e.g. comprise adapting the pH of the electrolyte. For example, the pH at the negative compatment may be lower compared to the positive compartment with at least a value of pH 2.”.
“Compatment” should be “compartment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states “ a naphthalene diimide, abbreviated NDI, or a modified NDI” when it should state “a naphthalene diimide (NDI), an abbreviated NDI, or a modified NDI”.
Claim 1 states “a negative compartment comprising a negative electrode in contact with a second aqueous-based electrolyte solution comprising a negative electrolyte being an organic redox-active molecule dissolved in a second aqueous-based solvent”.
The phrase “a negative electrolyte being an organic redox-active molecule dissolved in a second aqueous-based solvent” can be read as the negative electrolyte itself is the organic redox-active molecule dissolved in the second aqueous-based solvent. However, from the recitation of the positive electrolyte limitations in claim 1, it appears the positive/negative electrolytes themselves are pieces dissolved in the solvent instead of being pieces that include the solvent.
Therefore, the claim should recite something similar to “a negative compartment comprising a negative electrode in contact with a second aqueous-based electrolyte solution comprising a negative electrolyte dissolved in a second aqueous-based solvent, wherein the negative electrolyte is an organic redox-active molecule”.
Claim 14 states “wherein the pH at the negative compatment” when it should state “wherein the pH at the negative compartment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1 recites “electrical conductive means for establishing electrical conduction between said positive electrode and said negative electrode” and “means capable of establishing flow of the electrolyte solutions past said positive and negative electrodes”.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Applicant’s specification states “The redox flow battery, according to the present invention, comprises electrical conductive means for establishing electrical conduction between said positive electrode and said negative electrode in order to permit the redox flow battery, according to the present invention, to be charged and discharged. In a particular embodiment, the electrical conduction means include wiring means, i.e., the presence of wiring and associated bonding pads and the like sufficient for establishing electrical conduction. However, the electrical conductive means for establishing electrical conduction do not necessarily have to be in the form of wiring” (Page 5).
Therefore the “electrical conductive means for establishing electrical conduction between said positive electrode and said negative electrode” is being interpreted by the examiner as wiring or other structures sufficient for establishing electrical conduction.
Applicant’s specification states “Further, the redox flow battery also comprises means capable of (i.e., having design features for) establishing flow of the first aqueous-based electrolyte solution and the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution past, or through, said positive and negative electrodes, respectively. Such means may e.g. be a pump or other means resulting in a flow or pressure difference” (Page 3).
Therefore the “means capable of establishing flow of the electrolyte solutions past said positive and negative electrodes” is being interpreted by the examiner as a pump or other means resulting in a flow or pressure difference.
Claim 1 recites “wherein at least one of the first and second aqueous-based electrolytes is based on an ammonium-based salt”.
Applicant’s specification states “When stating that at least one of the first and second aqueous-based electrolytes is based on an ammonium-based salt, the first and/or second aqueous-based electrolytes is formed from the ammonium-based salt, or comprises the ammonium-based salt” (Page 5).
Therefore, this description from Applicant is what the Examiner bases the interpretation of “wherein at least one of the first and second aqueous-based electrolytes is based on an ammonium-based salt” on.
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 3, 6, and 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claims recites “preferably”. The term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The Examiner is interpreting the claim to recite “…wherein the other one of the first and second aqueous-based electrolytes is based on an ammonium salt.”
Regarding claim 6, the claims recites “e.g. a core-aminated NDI.”. The term “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The Examiner is interpreting the claim to recite “…wherein the modified NDI is a substituted NDI.”
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation "wherein the pH at the negative compatment is lower compared to the positive compartment with at least a value of pH 2". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
First, it is unclear from the claim as written, what the “pH at the negative compatment” refers to. Is it the pH of the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution in the negative compartment, the negative electrolyte in the negative compartment, or the negative electrode in the negative compartment.
Second, it is unclear from the claim as written, which compartment has a value of pH 2. The claim can be read in two ways: wherein the pH at the negative compartment has a value of pH 2 and this pH is lower than that of the positive compartment, or the negative compartment has pH lower than the positive compartment and the positive compartment has a pH with at least a valve of pH 2.
Due to the issues above, the Examiner will not apply prior art to claim 14 until the 112(b) issues are remedied.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the pH is adjusted during cycling due to the proton-coupled electron transfer of NDI”.
It is unclear if the proton-coupled electron transfer is being specified such that the organic redox-active molecule is the naphthalene diimide or if it also extends to the claimed abbreviated NDI or modified NDI.
Further, the claim recites the limitation "the pH". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is unclear what pH is being spoken about. Is it the pH of the first aqueous-based electrolyte solution, the positive electrolyte, the positive electrode, the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution, the negative electrolyte, or the negative electrode? Or is it the pH of all?
Due to the issues above, the Examiner will not apply prior art to claim 15 until the 112(b) issues are remedied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nuckolls et al (US 20200259199 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nuckolls discloses a redox flow battery (see entire disclosure and especially P64) comprising:
a positive compartment comprising a positive electrode in contact with a first aqueous-based electrolyte solution comprising a positive electrolyte dissolved in a first aqueous-based solvent (cathode cell 2 including catholyte 21 and cathode 42 in Fig. 6A; see entire disclosure and especially P64; the positive electrolyte can be drawn to either dimethylpiperidine cyclopropenium or LiTFSI which would be dissolved in the acetonitrile solvent used in the catholyte mixture, P81-82);
a negative compartment comprising a negative electrode in contact with a second aqueous-based electrolyte solution comprising a negative electrolyte being an organic redox-active molecule dissolved in a second aqueous-based solvent (anode cell 1 including anolyte 11 and anode 41 in Fig. 6A; see entire disclosure and especially P64; the negative electrolyte can be drawn to the triethylammonium tail napthalene diimide (NDI) which would be dissolved in the acetonitrile solvent used in the anolyte mixture, P81-82);
electrical conductive means for establishing electrical conduction between said positive electrode and said negative electrode, and an external load for directing electrical energy into or out of the redox flow battery (as seen in Fig. 6A, the cathode 42 and anode 41 are connected to a load source (drawn to the claimed external load); while Nuckolls does not explicitly state ‘electrical conductive means’, given the cathode and anode are connected to a load source, it is inherent that some structure sufficient for establishing electrical conduction is utilized to establish electrical conduction between the cathode and anode);
a separator component that separates the first aqueous-based electrolyte solution in the positive compartment from the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution in the negative compartment and substantially prevents the positive electrolyte in the positive compartment and the negative electrolyte in the negative compartment from intermingling with each other, while permitting the passage of non-redox-active species between the electrolyte solutions in the positive and negative compartments (“The ion exchange membrane 10 prevents ions of active materials of the catholyte 11 and the anolyte 12 from being mixed with each other and permits only ions of a charge carrier of a supporting electrolyte to be transferred”, P64; see Fig. 6A); and
means capable of establishing flow of the electrolyte solutions past said positive and negative electrodes, respectively (“The anolyte 11 and the catholyte 21 respectively circulate through pumps 31 and 32”, P64; see Fig. 6A),
wherein at least one of the first and second aqueous-based electrolytes is based on an ammonium-based salt (triethylammonium tail napthalene diimide (NDI) is an ammonium-based salt, therefore, the second aqueous-based electrolyte is based on an ammonium-based salt; see entire disclosure and especially P81-82), and
wherein the organic redox-active molecule is a naphthalene diimide, abbreviated NDI, or a modified NDI (triethylammonium tail napthalene diimide (NDI) is a modified NDI; see entire disclosure and especially P81-82).
Regarding claim 6, Nuckolls discloses wherein the modified NDI is a substituted NDI (triethylammonium tail napthalene diimide (NDI) is a substituted NDI; see entire disclosure and especially P81-82).
Regarding claims 11-13, Nuckolls discloses the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution comprises triethylammonium tail napthalene diimide (NDI), LiTSFI, and acetonitrile (see the rejection of claim 1).
Nuckolls discloses the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution according to claim 1. Nuckolls is silent to “wherein the battery is configured such that the NDI, or modified NDI, is reduced with two electrons in the negative compartment, creating an NDI dianion or hydroNDI” (claim 11), “wherein the NDI dianon or reduced NDI is an original reduced NDI having a first structure, and wherein the battery is configured such that the original reduced NDI is restructured into a restructured reduced NDI having a second structure different from said first structure, the restructured reduced NDI having a different reduction potential compared to the original reduced NDI” (claim 12), “wherein the difference in reduction potential between the original reduced NDI and the restructured reduced NDI determines the voltage of the battery” (claim 13), however, these appears to be an inherent characteristics of the battery including the NDI/modified NDI.
While the prior art does not explicitly teach the reduction of the modified NDI, this property is considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the battery disclosed in the prior art and the Applicant. As the battery taught by the prior art and the Applicant are identical within the scope of claim 1, the modified NDI of Nuckolls inherently teaches the reduction, and therefore the difference in reduction potential determining the voltage of the battery, as claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 17, Nuckolls discloses the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution comprises triethylammonium tail napthalene diimide (NDI), LiTSFI, and acetonitrile (see the rejection of claim 1).
Nuckolls discloses the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution according to claim 1. Nuckolls is silent to “wherein the battery is configured such that the NDI, or modified NDI, is reduced with two electrons in the negative compartment, creating an NDI dianion or hydroNDI, wherein the NDI dianon or reduced NDI is an original reduced NDI having a first structure, and wherein the battery is configured such that the original reduced NDI is restructured into a restructured reduced NDI having a second structure different from said first structure, the restructured reduced NDI having a different reduction potential compared to the original reduced NDI, and wherein charging of the battery results in the following reactions: - in the negative compartment: NDI + 2e- → NDI2- and ND12- → NDI*2- or NDI + 2e- + 2H+ → NDIH2 and NDIH2 → NDIH2*, wherein NDI*2- and NDIH2* are forms of the restructured reduced NDI; - in the positive compartment: NDI*2- → NDI* + 2e- and NDI* → NDI or NDIH2* → NDI* + 2e- + 2H+ and NDI* → NDI, wherein NDI* is the oxidised condition of the restructured reduced NDI”, however, these appears to be an inherent characteristics of the battery including the NDI/modified NDI.
While the prior art does not explicitly teach the reduction of the modified NDI, this property is considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the battery disclosed in the prior art and the Applicant. As the battery taught by the prior art and the Applicant are identical within the scope of claim 1, the modified NDI of Nuckolls inherently teaches the reduction process as claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nuckolls et al (US 20200259199 A1), as evidenced by Byon (Ion-Coupled Electron Transfer of Naphthalene Diimide for Organic Redox Flow Batteries).
Regarding claim 4, Nuckolls discloses the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution comprises triethylammonium tail napthalene diimide (NDI), LiTSFI, and acetonitrile (see the rejection of claim 1).
Nuckolls is silent to the solubility of the organic redox-active molecule at room temperature in the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution; however, Byon describes two ammonium-tethered NDI and bistriflimide (TFSI-) as the counter anion showed 0.9M solubility in MeCN (which is a commonly known abbreviated for acetonitrile) (Page 3).
While the solution of Byon is not exact to the solution of Nuckolls, both include an ammonium modified NDI mixed with a TSFI-based compound and acetonitrile. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these similarities and believe the solubilities of the ammonium modified NDIs to be similar as well.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would believe the solubility of triethylammonium tail napthalene diimide (NDI) in the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution of Nuckolls is around 0.9M, which lies within the claimed range.
Further, while the prior art does not explicitly teach the solubility, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution disclosed in the prior art and the Applicant. As the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution taught by the prior art and the Applicant are identical within the scope of claim 1, the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution of Nuckolls inherently teaches the solubility claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 1-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wiberg et al (WO 2020/201405 A1, as given in the 02/16/2023 IDS, having an effective filing date of 02/04/2020).
The applied reference has a common assignee and joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Wiberg discloses a redox flow battery (see entire disclosure and especially Page 2) comprising:
a positive compartment comprising a positive electrode in contact with a first aqueous-based electrolyte solution comprising a positive electrolyte dissolved in a first aqueous-based solvent (see entire disclosure and especially Page 2 and 4);
a negative compartment comprising a negative electrode in contact with a second aqueous-based electrolyte solution comprising a negative electrolyte being an organic redox-active molecule dissolved in a second aqueous-based solvent (see entire disclosure and especially Page 2 and 4);
electrical conductive means for establishing electrical conduction between said positive electrode and said negative electrode, and an external load for directing electrical energy into or out of the redox flow battery (see entire disclosure and especially Page 2 and 5);
a separator component that separates the first aqueous-based electrolyte solution in the positive compartment from the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution in the negative compartment and substantially prevents the positive electrolyte in the positive compartment and the negative electrolyte in the negative compartment from intermingling with each other, while permitting the passage of non-redox-active species between the electrolyte solutions in the positive and negative compartments (see entire disclosure and especially Page 2); and
means capable of establishing flow of the electrolyte solutions past said positive and negative electrodes, respectively (see entire disclosure and especially Page 2 and 3),
wherein at least one of the first and second aqueous-based electrolytes is based on an ammonium-based salt (see entire disclosure and especially Page 2 and 4), and
wherein the organic redox-active molecule is a naphthalene diimide, abbreviated NDI, or a modified NDI (see entire disclosure and especially Page 2, 6-10, and 28).
Regarding claim 2, Wiberg discloses wherein the ammonium-based salt comprises at least one of the following: ammonium chloride, ammonium phosphate (ammonium chloride, see Page 4).
Regarding claim 3, Wiberg discloses wherein the other one of the first and second aqueous-based electrolytes is based on an ammonium salt (both can include ammonium chloride, see Pages 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, Wiberg discloses wherein the organic redox-active molecule has a solubility at room temperature of at least 0.4 M in the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution (Pages 6-7).
Regarding claim 5, Wiberg discloses wherein the second aqueous-based electrolyte solution comprises at least two different organic redox-active molecules dissolved in the second aqueous-based solvent, a first organic redox-active molecule being NDI, and a second organic redox-active molecule being modified NDI (Page 7).
Regarding claim 6, Wiberg discloses wherein the modified NDI is a substituted NDI (Page 8).
Regarding claim 7, Wiberg discloses wherein the modified NDI comprises an amino group (Page 8).
Regarding claim 8, Wiberg discloses wherein the modified NDI has a structure according to formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
196
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(I)
wherein each, of R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and R6, is independently selected from: - hydrogen atom; - cyano group (-CN); - amino group -NR8R9R10, wherein R10 is present when the amino group is quaternized, and wherein R8, R9 and R10, if R10 present, are independently selected from hydrogen atom and hydrocarbyl group R11 having one to six carbon atoms, or, R8 and R9 forming together with the nitrogen a hetero ring having four to six carbon atoms;- sulfonate (-S(O)20H or -S(O)20-);- halogen atoms (e.g. fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and/or iodine); and - group R7, being a hydrocarbyl group having one to twenty carbon atoms, and having one or more heteroatoms selected from oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and halogen atoms (e.g. fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and/or iodine), or - group R7, being a hydrocarbyl group having one to twenty carbon atoms, and being substituted by one, two, or three substituents selected from:- amino group -NR8R9R10, wherein R10 is present when the amino group is quaternized, and wherein R8, R9 and R10, if R10 present, are independently selected from hydrogen atom and hydrocarbyl group R11 having one to six carbon atoms, or R8 and R9 forming together with the nitrogen, or together with the nitrogen and a further nitrogen in either of R8 or R9, a hetero ring having four to six carbon atoms, and - sulfonate (-S(O)20H or -S(O)20- ) or (-COOH or or COO-) (Pages 8-10).
Regarding claim 9, Wiberg discloses wherein R1 and R4 comprise tertiary or quaternary amines, and/or sulfonate groups (Page 9).
Regarding claim 10, Wiberg discloses wherein at least one of R2, R3, R5 and R6 is a group or molecule comprising more than a hydrogen atom, or is different to a hydrogen atom, or wherein at least one of R2, R3, R5 and R6 is an amino or cyano group (Page 9).
Regarding claim 11, Wiberg discloses herein the battery is configured such that the NDI, or modified NDI, is reduced with two electrons in the negative compartment, creating an NDI dianion or hydroNDI (Page 15).
Regarding claim 12, Wiberg discloses wherein the NDI dianon or reduced NDI is an original reduced NDI having a first structure, and wherein the battery is configured such that the original reduced NDI is restructured into a restructured reduced NDI having a second structure different from said first structure, the restructured reduced NDI having a different reduction potential compared to the original reduced NDI (Page 15).
Regarding claim 13, Wiberg discloses wherein the difference in reduction potential between the original reduced NDI and the restructured reduced NDI determines the voltage of the battery (Page 15).
Regarding claim 16, Wiberg discloses wherein the positive electrolyte is the same as the negative electrolyte, forming a symmetrical redox flow battery (Page 16).
Regarding claim 17, Wiberg discloses herein the battery is configured such that the NDI, or modified NDI, is reduced with two electrons in the negative compartment, creating an NDI dianion or hydroNDI, wherein the NDI dianon or reduced NDI is an original reduced NDI having a first structure, and wherein the battery is configured such that the original reduced NDI is restructured into a restructured reduced NDI having a second structure different from said first structure, the restructured reduced NDI having a different reduction potential compared to the original reduced NDI, and wherein charging of the battery results in the following reactions: - in the negative compartment: NDI + 2e- → NDI2- and ND12- → NDI*2- or NDI + 2e- + 2H+ → NDIH2 and NDIH2 → NDIH2*, wherein NDI*2- and NDIH2* are forms of the restructured reduced NDI; - in the positive compartment: NDI*2- → NDI* + 2e- and NDI* → NDI or NDIH2* → NDI* + 2e- + 2H+ and NDI* → NDI, wherein NDI* is the oxidised condition of the restructured reduced NDI (Page 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuckolls et al (US 20200259199 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Potash et al (On the Benefits of a Symmetric Redox Flow Battery).
Regarding claim 16, Nuckolls does not disclose wherein the positive electrolyte is the same as the negative electrolyte, forming a symmetrical redox flow battery.
In similar field of endeavor, Potash teaches “There are several clear practical benefits to using a symmetric RFB electrolyte. The most significant benefit is that physical crossover of electro-active species does not result in mixing of disparate chemical compounds. This feature dramatically simplifies charge rebalancing from electrolyte crossover, since it does not require chemical separations. An SRFB has an additional benefit, however, in that there exists neither chemical nor electrical potential gradients between the negative and positive electrolyte chambers in the discharged state, and so the driving force for mixing or adventitious side-reactions is negligible. This implies that a discharged SRFB cell could be stored indefinitely without degradation” (Page A340 Left Column under “Definition, Properties, and Advantages of the SRFB”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Potash and modified the redox flow battery of Nuckolls to be a symmetrical redox flow battery as claimed, given Potash teaches symmetrical redox flow batteries simplifies charge rebalancing from electrolyte crossover and has the potential to be stored indefinitely without degradation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729