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 April 17, 2026:
Claims 1-17 are pending.
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The majority of the 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment with the exception of section 9 subsections a, d, n, and r in the previous office action. The previous issues either have not been addressed, or the amendments introduce new issues. (Note: A typographical error exists in section 9n in the previous office action, as the rejection was made to claim 15, wherein claim 16 was meant instead.)
The core of the previous prior art rejection are maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes made are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
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 1-17 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 1 recites “An electrochemical cell of a redox flow battery” (preamble). However, this language is confusing, as multiple interpretations can be applied, such as (1) that the electrochemical cell is a redox flow battery, or (2) that the electrochemical cell is part of a redox flow battery. Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite. Since claims 2-17 are dependent upon claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason. (Claim interpretation: In light of the disclosure, the interpretation that the electrochemical cell is a redox flow battery is taken. Examiner suggests amending the preamble of claim 1 and claims 2-14 to “A redox flow battery” and “The redox flow battery”, respectively.)
Claim 1 recites “the finger element” (singular) (line 5). However, antecedent basis is provided for “at least one finger element” (claim 1, line 6) (singular and plural). Accordingly, it is unclear and indefinite to what “the finger element” refers.
Claim 15 recites “A cell stack of a redox flow battery comprising a plurality of electrochemical cells according to claim 1” (preamble). However, this language is confusing, as it is unclear how the electrochemical cells, redox flow battery, and a cell stack relate to one another (as both the cell stack and electrochemical cells recite a redox flow battery). (“A cell stack comprising a plurality of redox flow batteries of claim 1.” Is suggested, consistent with the suggestion to the change of claim 1’s preamble. Similar removal of the terminology regarding “electrochemical cells” is suggested to be removed from the claims, as the claim interpretation applied is a redox flow battery is present.) Since claims 16-17 are dependent upon claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 16 recites “a plurality of finger elements” (line 2), and subsequently recites “the plurality of finger elements” (line 4). However, claim 1, which claim 16 is dependent from already cites “at least one finger element”. It is uncertain the relationship of the plurality of finger elements to those set forth in independent claim 1 (same, different?). Thus the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 17 recites “the plurality of finger elements” (multiple times in the claim). However, claim 1, which claim 17 is dependent from already cites “at least one finger element”. It is uncertain the relationship of the plurality of finger elements to those set forth in independent claim 1 (same, different?). Thus the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0109165/WO 2020/166418A1 (Kanno). (Note: The US version is relied upon as the English translation for the WO document. Both documents are applicable under different dates.)
As to claim 1, Kanno teaches an electrochemical cell of a redox flow battery (abs), having at least one cell frame [3] and at least one electrode [14, 15],
wherein the at least one cell frame [3] circumferentially encloses a cell interior (fig. 3),
wherein the at least one cell frame [3] has at least one feed channel (liquid supply slit [33s, 34s]) for feeding electrolyte into the cell interior and at least one discharge channel (liquid discharge slit [35s, 36s]) for discharging electrolyte from the cell interior (figs. 4-5; para 0094-0097),
wherein the at least one cell frame [3] has at least one finger element (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) projecting into the cell interior and wherein the at least one electrode [14, 15] is arranged at least in regions in the cell interior and on opposite sides of the at least one finger element (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6]),
wherein the at least one feed channel and/or the at least one discharge channel (liquid supply slit [33s, 34s]/ liquid discharge slit [35s, 36s]) is provided, at least in sections, in the at least one finger element (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7] via the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]),
wherein that the at least one finger element (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6]) has at least one outlet opening into the cell interior for the electrolyte to be fed and/or at least one inlet opening from the cell interior for the electrolyte to be discharged (figs. 4-6; para 0091-0112).
As to claim 2, Kanno teaches the at least one electrode in the cell interior has a porosity for the flow through of the electrolyte at least partially from the at least one feed channel to the at least one discharge channel (para 0088, 0091-0093, 0100-0105; figs. 1-6).
As to claim 3, Kanno teaches a non-porous section of the electrode comprises a bipolar plate [31] (non-porosity indicated by channels and holes used for fluid communication figs. 4-5), and
wherein the bipolar [31] plate is electrically conductively (para 0091) connected to a porous section of the at least one electrode (seen in fig. 3) and closes the cell interior on a side opposite of a semipermeable membrane [11] (ion exchange indicates ion permeability; para 0088) (fig. 3).
As to claim 4, Kanno teaches the least one finger element (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) is formed as a continuous strut bridging the cell interior and separating two cell chambers of the cell interior from each other (figs 3-6).
As to claim 5, Kanno teaches a height of the at least one finger element (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) corresponds, at least in sections, to a height of the cell interior and/or of the at least one cell frame [3] in a corresponding region of the finger element. This interpretation is taken barring specification of substantially and the correspondence. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As to claim 6, Kanno teaches wherein at least one flow channel is inset into a porous section of the at least one electrode [14, 15], and
wherein the at least one flow channel adjoins the at least one inlet opening and/or the at least one outlet opening (communication holes [50, 70]), of the at least one finger element (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7] via the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) (figs. 3-6).
As to claim 7, Kanno teaches at least one flow channel (introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) of the at least one electrode adjoining the at least one inlet opening and at least one flow channel of the electrode adjoining the at least one outlet opening (communication holes [50, 70]) are spaced apart from one another via a porous section of the electrode [14, 15] for the flow through of electrolyte (figs. 3-6).
As to claim 8, Kanno teaches the at least one flow channel adjoining the at least one inlet opening and the at least one flow channel adjoining at least one outlet opening (introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7], with respective communication holes [50, 70]) are in at least one direction each provided alternately with respect to one another, and/or
wherein the at least one flow channel of the electrode and the at least one finger element (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) of the at least one cell frame [3] are arranged perpendicular to one another (figs. 4-6; para 0099-0112).
As to claim 9, Kanno teaches the at least one finger element (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) comprises a plurality of finger elements arranged parallel to one another, and/or
a plurality of at least substantially parallel flow channels is provided in the electrode (figs. 3-6).
As to claim 10, Kanno teaches the at least one finger element comprises an odd number of finger elements (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) and
wherein the odd number of finger elements alternately comprise in the order of their arrangement at least partially a feed channel and a discharge channel (figs. 4-5) (in at least one interpretation one is present, due to the connection on either side).
As to claim 11, Kanno teaches the at least one finger element (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) forms a grid structure (figs. 4-5).
As to claim 13, Kanno teaches the bipolar plate [31] and the porous section of the at least one electrode [14, 15] are not firmly connected to one another, and
wherein the bipolar plate, and the porous section of the electrode engage in one another in a form-fitting manner (fig. 3).
As to claim 14, Kanno teaches ribs of the bipolar plate [31], engage in a form-fitting manner in the porous section of the electrode [14,15], and
wherein the ribs of the bipolar plate engage at least in sections in a form-fitting manner in the flow channels of the porous section of the electrode (engagement via placement next to, as seen in the stack of fig. 3; ribs seen in fig. 6).
As to claim 15, Kanno teaches a cell stack of a redox flow battery, comprising a plurality of electrochemical cells according to claim 1 (stack seen in figs. 2-3; the subject matter of claim 1 set forth in the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
As to claim 16, Kanno teaches a plurality of finger elements (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) are provided in both half-cells of the plurality of electrochemical cells, and/or
Wherein the plurality of finger elements of at least mutually adjacent half-cells are arranged, at least in sections, aligned with one another in a stacking direction of the plurality of electrochemical cells (figs. 3-6).
As to claim 17, Kanno teaches a height of the respectively aligned sections of the plurality of finger elements portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) corresponds to a height of a respective cell interior and/or of a respective cell frame [3] in each case in a region of the aligned sections of the finger elements,
wherein the respectively aligned sections of the plurality of finger elements bear on one side against a semipermeable membrane [11] and on the opposite side against a non-porous section of the at least one electrode, the non-porous section of the at least one electrode comprising a bipolar plate [31] (figs. 3-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, in view of US 2018/00331373 (Byun et al.).
As to claim 12, Kanno does not teach the at least one finger element (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) is materially bonded to the semipermeable membrane [11] and/or the bipolar plate [31],
wherein the materially bonded connection is joined by means of adhesive bonding or welding.
However, Byun et al. teaches, in the same field of endeavor, teach of using bonding the bipolar plate to the electrode and/or membrane (fig. 2; para 0045). The motivation for having the bonding regarding the bipolar plate, electrode, and membrane is for the flow of electrolyte solution (para 0045). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the at least one finger element materially bonded to the semipermeable membrane and/or to the bipolar plate, and wherein the materially bonded connection is joined by means of adhesive bonding or welding (as generally taught by Byun et al. (between the redox cell parts) and applied to Kanno’s structure) in order to help with flow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kanno does not teach “wherein the at least one cell frame has at least one finger element projecting into the cell interior and wherein the at least one electrode is arranged at least in regions of the cell interior and on opposite sides of the at least one finger element”, since (a) Kanno’s fingers (introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) are flow channels and not fingers that are part of the frame body [32], and (b) the fingers of the instant application are different than that of the instant application (citing figs. 2A, 2B of the instant application).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to (a): Nothing in the claim language precludes the interpretation taken regarding Kanno (i.e. no claim language exists that requires that the frame must be in one piece, and that multiple pieces cannot constitute the frame; no claim language exists establishing separate flow channels).
With respect to (b): The claim language does not limit to the structure seen in the figures of the instant application (such that Kanno is not applicable).
Thus the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
With respect to the arguments regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the prior art used to render obvious the rejected claims (Byun) do not cure the deficiencies of the rejection applied to the independent claim (Kanno). Applicant does not argue how the combination is not proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the obviousness rejections and upholds the rejection to the independent claim, as above.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights