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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 04/22/2026:
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-12 are pending in the current application. Claim 3 has been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “wherein the supporting redox active species is present at from 0.1 to 20 wt.% of the electrolyte composition” when it should recite “wherein the supporting redox active species is present from 0.1 to 20 wt.% of the electrolyte composition”.
The Examiner also notes the claim could instead state “wherein the supporting redox active species is present in an amount of 0.1 to 20 wt.% of the electrolyte composition”.
Claim 11 recites “the electrolyte of claim 3” when it should recite “the redox flow battery electrolyte of claim 3” to provide consistency to the claims.
Claim 11 recites “claim 3, and B) an anolyte” when it should recite “claim 3 and B) an anolyte” to ensure it is known that the system either comprises a catholyte and an anolyte or a mixture of both in a polar solvent.
Claim 12 recites “The redox flow battery system of claim 11 further comprising” when it should recite “The redox flow battery system of claim 11, further comprising” to provide consistency to the claims.
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.
Claim 3, and thus claims 4-6 and 8-12, 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 3 recites the limitation "the electrolyte composition" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner also notes “the electrolyte composition” is utilized in claim 10.
Given claims 4-6 and 8-12 depend from claim 3, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed. Further, if the objections to the claims and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are overcome, then claims 3-6 and 8-12 would be allowed. Under the assumption the objections and rejections are overcome, the following statements below are made.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the invention of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-12.
Independent claim 1 recites “A DMTD metal salt derivative of formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
160
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(formula 1)
where both M are an alkaline earth metal.”
Previously cited Kinlen, previously cited Tsuji, and previously cited Laufer disclose a DMTD metal salt derivative including alkali earth metals as “M” in formula 1. None of the previously cited arts utilize an alkaline earth metal in the place of “M” in formula 1.
Previously cited Tepper teaches a thiadiazole complex (see formula below P25) wherein alkaline earth metals can be included (P25). However, in Tepper’s formula, only X2 is provided as an alkaline earth metal, while X1 and X3 are hydrogens. Therefore, the thiadiazole complex of Tepper would not meet the limitations of claim 1.
Independent claim 3 recites “A redox flow battery electrolyte comprising A) a polar solvent, and B) from 1 to 50 wt.% of the electrolyte composition of a DMTD metal salt derivative of formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
160
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(formula 1)
where M is H or an alkali or alkaline earth metal, with the proviso that at least one of M is an alkali or alkaline earth metal.”
Previously cited Kinlen does not teach or suggest the DMTD metal salt derivative of formula 1 alongside a polar solvent.
Previously cited Tsuji discloses the DMTD metal salt derivative of formula 1 as a compound within a positive electrode layer, not within an electrolyte alongside a polar solvent.
Further, there is nothing within previously cited Laufer to teach or suggest wherein the DMTD metal salt derivative of formula 1 is present at from about 2.5 to about 50 wt.% of the electrolyte composition.
Applicant’s IDS provided 04/22/2026 notes Miyamoto et al (JPH06310173A, see the English translation provided in the IDS).
Miyamoto teaches an electrolyte comprising 2,5-dimercapto-1,3,4-thiadiazole, propylene carbonate, and lithium perchlorate (see the Examples in P9, 13). However, Miyamoto does not teach or suggest wherein the DMTD metal salt derivative of formula 1 is present at from about 2.5 to about 50 wt.% of the electrolyte composition.
Therefore, the references fail to teach or suggest the particulars of independent claims 1 or 3 and it’s not obvious to modify these teachings to give the instant claimed invention. Thus none of the prior art of the record teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the invention of independent claims 1 or 3. Since claims 4-6 and 8-12 depend on claim 3, they are allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Byram 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
Prosecution Insights