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 in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of the aforementioned claims disclose “a (semi-) conductive polymer”, note the “(semi-)” in parentheses. The claims would be more clear without parentheses, and the term “semi-) conductive polymer’ will be interpreted as the materials as set forth in the instant specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 7-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kazacos et al. (US 2001/0028977).
Regarding claim 1, Kazacos et al. discloses in Figs 1-29, an electrode ([0470]) for a redox flow battery (Abstract) comprising: a substrate ([0470], several materials listed), and a coating applied to a surface ([0470], surface coatings described) of the substrate ([0470]), wherein the coating comprises a conductive carbon material ([0470], , a (semi-) conductive polymer ([0470], polypyrrole) and, optionally, an oxygen evolution reaction (OER) catalyst ([0470], a number of metals listed, including Pt).
Regarding claim 2, Kazacos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the coating comprises a conductive carbon material ([0470], numerous carbon/graphite materials disclosed therein), a (semi-) conductive polymer ([0470], polypyrrole) and an oxygen evolution reaction (OER) catalyst ([0470], a number of metals listed, including Pt).
Regarding claim 3, Kazacos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the conductive carbon material is selected from graphite, carbon felt, carbon fiber, ([0470], all disclosed therein).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kazacos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the (semi-) conductive polymer is polypyrrole ([0470])
Regarding claims 9-13, Kazacos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the OER catalyst is a metal power comprising Pt ([0470]), not a metal salt ([0470], metallic, non-salt options listed).
Regarding claim 16, Kazacos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the substrate is carbon-based ([0470]).
Regarding claim 17, Kazacos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the substrate comprises graphite ([0470]) and, optionally, polypropylene ([0470], both listed therein).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazacos et al. (US 2001/0028977) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gendel et al. (US 2016/0301084).
Regarding claims 4-6, Kazacos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the conductive carbon material is carbon nanotubes, the carbon nanotubes are unmodified carbon nanotubes or chemically or physically modified carbon nanotubes other than sulfonated carbon nanotubes, and the carbon nanotubes are surface modified by an adsorption layer or by chemical modification of their surface.
Gendel et al. discloses in Figs 1-12, a redox flow battery (Abstract, [0017], [0046]) including an electrode material comprising chemically surface modified carbon nanotubes ([0044], [0020], [0052]). This material enhances the physical properties and electrical performance of the redox flow battery ([0052], [0069]-[0070], [0078], Tables 1-2).
Gendel et al. and Kazacos et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, redox flow batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the surface modified carbon nanotubes as disclosed by Gendel et al. into the conductive carbon of Kazacos et al. to enhance the physical properties and electrical performance of the redox flow battery.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazacos et al. (US 2001/0028977) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pintauro et al. (US 2019/0245233).
Regarding claim 14, Kazacos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the OER catalyst is nickel on silica/alumina.
Pintauro et al. discloses a redox flow battery ([0012]) including a catalyst material comprising nickel supported on silica / alumina ([0017], [0047], [0053], [0110], [0113], [0118]). This material enhances the performance of the redox flow battery ([0012], [0013], [0047], [0053], [0110], [0113], [0118]).
Kazacos et al. and Pintauro et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, redox flow battery catalysts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the nickel supported on silica / alumina disclosed by Pintauro et al. into the catalyst of Kazacos et al. to enhance electrochemical performance of the redox flow battery.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazacos et al. (US 2001/0028977) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Kazacos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further, the reference discloses the weight ratio of the OER catalyst, the carbon material and the (semi- ) conductive polymer in the coating in relative amounts overlapping ([0470], amounts of each material disclosed therein) that of the instant claimed ranges of 50 : 10 : 40 to 80 :4: 16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kazacos et al. (US 2006/0183016) discloses a redox flow battery ([0111]) including an electrode comprising a graphite substrate and polypropylene ([0135]).
Devina Pillay and Michelle Johannes, (“A First Principles Study of the Effects of Sulfur Adsorption on the Activity of Pt, Ni and Pt3Ni”), discloses Pt and Ni catalysts therein.
Zhang et al. (“Influence of silica–alumina support ratio on H2 production and catalyst carbon deposition from the Ni-catalytic pyrolysis/ reforming of waste tyres”, discloses performance of silica / alumina supported nickel catalysts (see Introduction et al.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725