DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 September 2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the objection to claim 36. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment does not distinguish from CN105153148A (Gu).
Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendment have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gu fails to teach the claimed concentration. The examiner disagrees. Gu exemplified a solution comprises sulfonated tryptanthrin prepared from mixing 0.01 g of tryptanthrin (i.e., about 0.04 mmol estimated by the examiner based on molecular mass of about 248 of tryptanthrin), with 8 mL 30% sulfuric acid ([00020]), thus the resulting product solution comprises 0.005 M , i.e., 5 mM of sulfonated tryptanthrin estimated by the examiner (i.e., (0.04mmol)/mL ), which meets the claimed concentration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 35-37 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 35 recites a chemical formula (I) with R, R’ and R’’, however, R’ is not defined in the formula , and a person of ordinary skill in the art could interpret the metes and bounds of the claims so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected as depending upon claim 35 but fail to correct the 112 issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 23 and 35-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu.
Regarding claims 23 and 35-36, Gu teaches a solution comprises sulfonated tryptanthrin prepared from mixing 0.01 g of tryptanthrin (i.e., about 0.04 mmol estimated by the examiner based on molecular mass of about 248 of tryptanthrin), with 8 mL 30% sulfuric acid ([0009] and [0020]), thus the resulting product solution comprises 0.005 M of sulfonated tryptanthrin, i.e., 5 mM of sulfonated tryptanthrin estimated by the examiner (i.e., (0.04mmol)/mL ), which meets the claimed concentration.
Gu teaches that the sulfonated tryptanthrin has the structure of ([0007]-[0009]) :
PNG
media_image1.png
168
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since the sulfonation is carried in 30% fuming sulfuric acid ([0009]) thus the presence of water, which meets a polar solvent, and H+, which anticipates the instantly claimed formula (I) wherein R is SO3H, R’ and R’’ both are H, thus the claimed anolyte solution.
The recitation “for an anolyte solution “ of claim 23, “the negative electrolyte of an electrochemical system’ of claim 35, and “used for a redox flow battery ” of claim 36 are interpreted as an intended use since there is no apparent structural difference required by the composition other than that recited in the body of the claim (see MPEP2111.02, II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The recitation “anolyte” in the preamble of claim 35 is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claim 37, Gu teaches that the solution comprises sodium chloride([0020], which meets a supporting electrolyte.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
