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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 7, 2023 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received March 22, 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: using “A” as the indefinite article to modify “electrochemical cell”, where ‘An’ should be used instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: using “electrolyte” without a definite article (note: claim 1, line 4 sets forth antecedent basis for electrolyte). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: using “at least one inlet opening” without a definite article (note: claim 1, lines 12-13 sets forth antecedent basis for at least one inlet opening). 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 1-17 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.
Recitations of “in particular” is exemplary language which renders the claim language unclear and indefinite, as it is unsure what the metes and bounds of the claim are (and if the subject matter following the exemplary language is a concrete limitation, as a narrower range of the claimed limitation). Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17 include the claim language “in particular” (in some cases multiple times within a claim). Since claims 2-17 are dependent upon at least claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 1, 5, and 8 recite “the cell frame” (singular) (in some cases multiple times within a claim). However, antecedent basis is provided for “at least one finger element” (claim 1, line 2) (singular and plural). Accordingly, it is unclear and indefinite to what “the cell frame” refers. Since claims 2-17 are dependent upon at least claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17 recite “the electrode” (singular) (in some cases multiple times within a claim). However, antecedent basis is provided for “at least one electrode” (claim 1, line 2) (singular and plural). Accordingly, it is unclear and indefinite to what “the electrode” refers. Since claims 2-17 are dependent upon at least claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 1 and 5 recite “the finger element” (singular) (in some cases multiple times within a claim). 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. Since claims 2-17 are dependent upon at least claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the flow through" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims 2, 3, and 12-14 are dependent upon claim 2, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the height" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the corresponding region" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recitations of “preferably” is exemplary language which renders the claim language unclear and indefinite, as it is unsure what the metes and bounds of the claim are (and if the subject matter following the exemplary language is a concrete limitation, as a narrower range of the claimed limitation). Claims 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 17 include the claim language “preferably”. Since claims 7-8 are dependent on claim 6, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the flow through" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “flow channels” (line 4) (plural) and “the at least one flow channel” (line 6) (singular and plural). However, it is uncertain the metes and bounds of the flow channels/at least one flow channel is, as claim 6, which claim 8 is dependent upon already sets for at least one flow channel.
Claim 9 recites “a plurality of finger elements” (line 4). However, claim 1, which claim 9 is dependent from already cites “at least one finger element”. It is uncertain the relationship of the plurality of finger elements (claim 9, different antecedent basis) 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 10 recites “finger elements” (line 4, multiple times) (plural). However, claim 1, which claim 10 is dependent from already cites “at least one finger element” (singular or plural). It is uncertain the relationship of the plurality of finger elements (claim 10, different antecedent basis) 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 14 recites the limitation "the flow channels" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “the finger elements” (lines 3-4, multiple times) (plural). However, claim 1, which claim 15 is dependent from already cites “at least one finger element” (singular or plural). 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 limitation "the height" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the respectively aligned sections " in lines 3, 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “the finger elements” (multiple times) (plural). However, claim 1, which claim 17 is dependent from already cites “at least one finger element” (singular or plural). 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 limitation "the respective cell interior" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the respective cell frame " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the region of the aligned sections" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the bipolar plate" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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, in particular of a redox flow battery (abs),
having at least one cell frame [3] and at least one electrode [14, 15], wherein the cell frame [3] circumferentially encloses a cell interior (fig. 3),
wherein the 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 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]) 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 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]), and in 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 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, in particular in the form of a bipolar plate [31] (non-porosity indicated by channels and holes used for fluid communication figs. 4-5), which is electrically conductively (para 0091) connected to a porous section of the electrode (seen in fig. 3), 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 the 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 at least substantially to the height of the cell interior and/or of the cell frame [3] in the corresponding region of the finger element, and in that, preferably, the finger element bears on one side against a semipermeable membrane [11] and on the opposite side against a non-porous section of the electrode (figs. 3-6). 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, in particular the porous section, of the electrode [14, 15], and in that, preferably, the at least one flow channel adjoins an inlet opening and/or 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 electrode adjoining an inlet opening and at least one flow channel of the electrode adjoining an outlet opening (communication holes [50, 70]), in particular in each case 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 flow channels adjoining at least one inlet opening and flow channels 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 in that 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 cell frame [3] are arranged at least substantially perpendicular to one another (figs. 4-6; para 0099-0112).
As to claim 9, Kanno teaches a plurality of finger elements (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) arranged at least substantially parallel to one another is provided and/or that a plurality of at least substantially parallel flow channels is provided in the electrode (figs. 3-6).
As to claim 10, Kanno teaches an odd number of finger elements (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) is provided and in that, preferably, the 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; preferable feature interpreted as optional claim language; see 112 rejection above).
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 non-porous section of the electrode, in particular the bipolar plate [31], and the porous section of the electrode [14, 15] are not firmly connected to one another, and in that, preferably, the non-porous section of the electrode, in particular 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 non-porous section of the electrode, in particular of the bipolar plate [31], engage in a form-fitting manner in the porous section of the electrode [14,15], and in that, preferably, the ribs of the non-porous section of the electrode, in particular 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, in particular 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 the finger elements (portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) are provided in each case in both half-cells of the plurality of electrochemical cells and/or in that the finger elements of at least mutually adjacent half- cells are arranged in each case at least in sections at least substantially aligned with one another in the stacking direction of the electrochemical cells (figs. 3-6).
As to claim 17, Kanno teaches the height of the respectively aligned sections of the finger elements portions around the introduction channel [4, 6] and/or discharge channel [5, 7]) corresponds at least substantially to the height of the respective cell interior and/or of the respective cell frame [3] in each case in the region of the aligned sections of the finger elements , and in that, preferably, the respectively aligned sections of the finger elements bear on one side against a semipermeable membrane [11] and on the opposite side against a non-porous section of the electrode, in particular of the bipolar plate [31] (figs. 3-6).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 to the non-porous section of the electrode, in particular the bipolar plate [31], and in that, preferably, 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 non-porous section of the electrode, in particular the bipolar plate and in that, preferably, 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. (Note: preferable feature interpreted as optional claim language; see 112 rejection above).
Conclusion
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 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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