DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7 and 9-33 are pending in the application, with claims 18-33 currently withdrawn. New grounds of rejection have been added as a result of the amendment to the claims submitted 7/14/2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazacos et al. (US 2001/0028977) in view of Ruther et al. (US 2019/0067738).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, 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]) and, optionally, an oxygen evolution reaction (OER) catalyst ([0470], a number of metals listed, including Pt).
Kazacos et al. does not explicitly disclose polyaniline.
Ruther et al. discloses an electrode substrate ([0047]) comprising a coating of Pt, carbon, and polyanaline ([0047]). This configuration enhances conducting and overall electrical performance of the battery electrode ([0047]).
Ruther et al. and Kazacos et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the polyaniline of Ruther et al. into the structure of Kazacos et al. to enhance conducting and overall electrical performance of the battery.
Further, while modified Kazacos et al. does not explicitly disclose the wt% ratio mix of catalyst, carbon, and polyaniline, the change in the wt% ratio mix of catalyst, carbon, and polyaniline is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Ruther (see [0047]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of filing the invention that varying the wt% ratio mix of catalyst, carbon, and polyaniline will vary the conductivity of said electrode. Therefore the electrode conductivity is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the wt% ratio mix of catalyst, carbon, and polyaniline. For that reason, the wt% ratio mix of catalyst, carbon, and polyaniline, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the wt% ratio mix of catalyst, carbon, and polyaniline cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the wt% ratio mix of catalyst, carbon, and polyaniline in the electrode of Kazacos et al. as taught by Ruther et al. to obtain the desired electrode conductivity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, modified 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, modified 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 claim 7, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazacos et al. (US 2001/0028977) in view of Ruther et al. (US 2019/0067738) 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) in view of Ruther et al. (US 2019/0067738) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-17 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights