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
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claims 14 and 19 amended
Claim 17 canceled
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, examiner still finds that the combination of Kreiner and Zhang would meet all of the limitations of claim 1 as well as amended claim 14, and that all of the additional rejections would also still be sufficient. Examiner will respond to applicant arguments in order:
Applicant’s primary argument is that Kreiner in view of Zhang fails to teach each and every limitation of claim 1, particularly the presence of a flow shaping baffle including a plurality of channels extending from a first end proximate the cathode to a second end proximate the anode along an axis substantially perpendicular to the electrodes, the first end having a first diameter and the second end having a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter. Applicant proceeds to argue that Kreiner does not teach this limitation alone, and that it would not be obvious to modify via Zhang in order to meet the claimed limitations. Applicant cites that Kreiner fails to teach explicitly two ends having different diameters of the sloped channels that function as a flow shaping baffle. Examiner acknowledges this, but by modifying the channel having two ends of multiple sizes to have a tubular structure, as taught by Zhang, this limitation would be met.
Applicant argues that Zhang fails to teach or suggest that pipe 609 has a first end with a first diameter and a second end with a second diameter. While this is true, this is not the argument that was provided in the original rejection. The combination used in the previous rejection is that if the sloped channel having two ends of different sizes of Kreiner, which is used for electrolyte circulation, were modified to have a tubular structure, as taught by the pipe 609 of Zhang (also used for electrolyte circulation), then the resulting product would be a flow shaping baffle with two ends having different diameters.
Next, applicant argues that the purpose of Kreiner is to create reaction zones and that the modification of Kreiner with Zhang would “at least hinder, if not eliminate, the creation of reaction zone 18 and separation zone 19.” Applicant states this but does not actually elaborate on why this would be the case, and therefore this argument is not considered persuasive.
Lastly, in regards to the combination of Kreiner and Zhang, applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine Kreiner with Zhang to “promote electrolyte circulation” and that it would likely have negative effects on the system. Once again, applicant does not provide reasoning for why that would be the case, but rather just states that there would be negative results. Examiner stands by the obviousness of modification, particularly regarding the fact that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying an electrolyte flow channel to have the structure of another electrolyte flow/circulation structure in the same classification/field. It is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to modify a known material with another known material, and in this case it would be obvious to modify the shape of a flow channel to have a tubular shape with holes rather than an open channel structure, based on the teachings of Zhang and desire to improve electrolyte circulation.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, since no further argument is provided other than the fact that they require the limitations of claim 1, the rejection is maintained in view of the above arguments
Regarding claim 14, applicant provides the same arguments as above, regarding claim 1, in terms of the patentability of claim 14 after amendment. In view of the same reasoning as above, examiner finds that the combination of Kreiner and Zhang meets all of the limitations of amended claim 14.
Regarding claims 3-4, 12, and 20, no further arguments are provided other than the fact that Steingart fails to cure the deficiencies of Kreiner and Zhang in terms of the subject matter of claim 1. In view of the above arguments, these rejections remain in place and unchanged.
Regarding claim 11, applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Kreiner to include a separator to separate the pair of electrodes, as Kreiner teaches away from the inclusion of a separator. While Kreiner does teach an embodiment that does not include a separator (“In other words, the reaction zone may be such that it does not contain a membrane or a separator between the positive and negative electrodes of the same cell that is impermeable to the halogen ions in the electrolyte.” Kreiner [0018]), it states that is “may be such,” thus, implying that a separator also could be present. Additionally, even if Kreiner is teaching away from the presence of a separator, Kreiner still teaches that traditionally, a separator would be present in a flow battery, and therefore it would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to include a separator between the electrodes (“The systems include flow architecture with a single flow circuit. Conventional metal halogen flow batteries maintain electrochemical efficiency by keeping reactant streams contained in two distinct flow loops by using a separator between the positive and negative electrodes of each flow cell and separate reservoirs for the electrolyte and the halogen reactant.” Kreiner [0014]). One of ordinary skill would be capable of modifying Kreiner to include a separator that includes the specific characteristics as taught by Steingart.
Regarding claim 20, applicant argues that in addition to not teaching all of the limitations of claim 14, it would not be obvious to include a pumpless design from Steingart into the flow battery of Kreiner. Examiner does not find this persuasive, as while Steingart isn’t explicitly teaching a flow battery, it does teach that its research methods and development is often used in the field of flow batteries (“Among known efforts for developing batteries which satisfy the above characteristics, engineering zinc-bromine batteries are notable. Such efforts are mainly focused on flow-batteries.” Steingart [0007]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill could look to the developments of Steingart to improve characteristics in a flow battery. For example, using a pumpless system such as described by Steingart in order to provide an advantageous/improved system (“Exemplary zinc-bromine battery designs eliminate the need for pumps and membranes, as well as for complexing agents that are seen in the traditional zinc-bromine systems, which also eliminates accompanying costs and failure points associated with the traditional zinc-bromine systems.” Steingart [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, applicant argues that since the limitations of claim 1 are not met and Hudak fails to teach those deficiencies, that the subject matter is allowable. However, as described above, examiner finds that the rejection of claim 1 is still sufficient. Thus, the rejection for claim 5 remains in place and unchanged.
Regarding claim 6-8 and 18-19, applicant argues that since the limitations of claim 1 are not met and Hudak fails to teach those deficiencies, that the subject matter is allowable. However, as described above, examiner finds that the rejection of claim 1 is still sufficient. Thus, the rejection for claims 6-8 and 18-19 remain in place and unchanged
Regarding claims 6,7 and 18, applicant further argues that Fujimoto does not teach a specific distance from a cathode for the baffle. As described in the prior rejection, Fujimoto teaches a gap of 1mm between the non-porous conductive porous later and a baffle structure where each are 4.5mm apart. One of ordinary skill would understand this teaching as a structure in which the baffle is within 1-4.5mm from the electrode, and, as stated in the previous rejection, the use of computational fluid dynamics to determine the optimal range would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to alter this distance in order to achieve optimal results in terms of battery performance. This would be within the scope of routine optimization and would therefore be an obvious modification to make.
Regarding claims 9 and 13, applicant argues that since the limitations of claim 1 are not met and Beddoes and Miller, respectively, fails to teach those deficiencies, that the subject matter is allowable. However, as described above, examiner finds that the rejection of claim 1 is still sufficient. Since no further arguments are provided regarding the specific subject matter of claims 9 and 13, the rejection for claims 9 and 13 remains in place and unchanged.
In conclusion, none of the arguments made are considered to be persuasive, and the previously applied rejections remain in place and unchanged, other than the rejection of claim 14 now accounting for the amendment made to the claim. If applicant were to incorporate multiple of the dependent claims into an independent claim, for example, the presence of an integrated separator and baffle (claim 13) and additionally another piece of subject matter, for example the presence of male/female connections (claim 9) or sizing parameters (claims 6-8), and provide reasoning for why this combination leads to improved results/characteristics, it is likely that the previously applied rejection would be overcome and further search and consideration would be required.
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) 1-2, 10, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiner (US 20170222246 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20150056524 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kreiner teaches the following elements:
An energy storage system, comprising: (“The present invention is directed to flow battery electrochemical systems and methods of using same.” Kreiner [0001])
a plurality of electrochemical cells, the electrochemical cells including: (“Referring to FIG. 3A, the stack 100 may include flow battery cells 10 stacked on one another,” Kreiner [0035])
a pair of electrodes including an anode and a cathode; (“The present disclosure utilizes a biphasic mixture for an electrolyte, which enables use of a single flow path and pump to provide the material needed for both the anode and cathode.” Kreiner [0061])
an electrolyte in communication with the pair of electrodes; (“The electrochemical (e.g., flow battery) system can include a vessel containing one or more electrochemical cells (e.g., a stack of flow battery cells) in its inner volume, a metal-halide electrolyte, and a flow circuit configured to deliver the metal-halide electrolyte to the electrochemical cell(s).” Kreiner [0015])
a flow shaping baffle situated between the pair of electrodes, (“ The lower contact regions 72 may be welded (e.g., stake welded) to contact regions 12A of the first electrode 12 that face (e.g., are exposed by) the junction holes 54 of the insert 50, thereby electrically connecting the connector 60 and the first electrode 12. The contact regions 14A of the second electrodes 14 may be disposed on portions of the insert 50 disposed between the junction holes 17.” Kreiner [0028]. In this case, the insert 50 functions as the flow shaping baffle connecting the two electrodes.)
the baffle including a plurality of channels extending from a first end proximate the cathode to a second end proximate the anode along an axis substantially perpendicular to the electrodes, (“The insert 50 may be formed of a dielectric (i.e., electrically insulating) material, such as a polymeric dielectric material or a moldable dielectric material. For example, the insert 50r may be formed of high density polyethylene (HDPE) polypropylene, PVDF, Teflon, or the like. The insert 50 may include sloped channels 52 and junction holes 54.” Kreiner [0026] In this case, the sloped channels function as the plurality of channels, see Kreiner figure 3A.)
Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 1. Specifically, Kreiner fails to specifically mention the two ends having a specific diameter. Kreiner does however, teach two ends having different sizes. (Kreiner figure 3A depicts sloped channel 52 extending in the x direction and the sloped channel creating a different sizes at end 14 versus end 12.):
the first end having a first diameter and the second end having a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter.
However, Zhang teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Kreiner. Specifically, Zhang teaches
the first end having a first diameter and the second end having a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter. (Zhang figure 8e depicts a pipe 609 having a diameter, and discloses that the purpose of the pipe is to circulate electrolyte among the system. By combining the tubular channel of Zhang with the sloped channel of Kreiner, a combination would be formed where the two ends of the channel would have different diameters, with the first being greater than the second.)
Zhang and Kreiner are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of flow-type batteries having channels which allow an electrolyte to be in communication with the electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kreiner to include the tube-like channel of Zhang in order to promote electrolyte circulation, (“An alternative embodiment is to comprise a mechanism to circulate the electrolyte within the system. One mechanism for circulating electrolyte is to add a chamber that is in proximity, adjacent, next or close to the first space.” Zhang [0083] and “The electrolyte circulation as a forced convection can help the process of concentration homogenization of the electrolyte in different locations within the cell and can improve the performance of the electrochemical system particularly at high current densities.” Zhang [0084].) The improved electrolyte circulation caused by this modification would be desirable in a flow battery as it would improve battery characteristics at a high current density.
Regarding claim 2, no further modification or motivation would be required, as Kreiner teaches all of the additional limitations.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kreiner teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 2:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of electrochemical cells is horizontally-connected, vertically-connected or combinations thereof. (“The flow battery cells 10 may be horizontally positioned, and may be stacked vertically and connected in series.” Kreiner [0054])
Regarding claim 10, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kreiner teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 10:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of electrochemical cells is connected in series, in parallel, or combinations thereof. (“The flow battery cells 10 may be horizontally positioned, and may be stacked vertically and connected in series.” Kreiner [0054])
Regarding claim 14, Kreiner teaches the following elements:
An electrochemical flow battery system comprising: (“The present invention is directed to flow battery electrochemical systems and methods of using same.” Kreiner [0001])
a plurality of electrochemical cells, (“Referring to FIG. 3A, the stack 100 may include flow battery cells 10 stacked on one another,” Kreiner [0035])
the plurality of electrochemical cells each having a pair of electrodes including an anode and a cathode, (“the first electrode 12 may be referred to as a negative electrode 12, and the second electrode 14 may be referred to as a positive electrode 14.” Kreiner [0023]. Each cell has both a positive and negative electrode.)
and a separator and/or a flow shaping baffle disposed between the pair of electrodes; (“ The lower contact regions 72 may be welded (e.g., stake welded) to contact regions 12A of the first electrode 12 that face (e.g., are exposed by) the junction holes 54 of the insert 50, thereby electrically connecting the connector 60 and the first electrode 12. The contact regions 14A of the second electrodes 14 may be disposed on portions of the insert 50 disposed between the junction holes 17.” Kreiner [0028]. In this case, the insert 50 functions as the flow shaping baffle connecting the two electrodes.)
at least one electrolyte in communication with the pair of electrodes; (“The electrochemical (e.g., flow battery) system can include a vessel containing one or more electrochemical cells (e.g., a stack of flow battery cells) in its inner volume, a metal-halide electrolyte, and a flow circuit configured to deliver the metal-halide electrolyte to the electrochemical cell(s).” Kreiner [0015])
wherein each of the plurality of electrochemical cells includes a flow shaping baffle having a plurality of channels extending from a first end proximate the cathode to a second end proximate the anode along an axis substantially perpendicular to the electrodes, (“The insert 50 may be formed of a dielectric (i.e., electrically insulating) material, such as a polymeric dielectric material or a moldable dielectric material. For example, the insert 50r may be formed of high density polyethylene (HDPE) polypropylene, PVDF, Teflon, or the like. The insert 50 may include sloped channels 52 and junction holes 54.” Kreiner [0026] In this case, the sloped channels function as the plurality of channels, see Kreiner figure 3A.)
Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 14:
a plurality of first enclosures each encloses at least one of each of the plurality of electrochemical cells; and a second enclosure encloses the plurality of first enclosures.
the first end having a first diameter and the second end having a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter.
However, Zhang teaches all of the elements of claim 14 not found in Kreiner:
a plurality of first enclosures each encloses at least one of each of the plurality of electrochemical cells; and a second enclosure encloses the plurality of first enclosures. (“Another alternative embodiment is to have more than one cell in a single container as illustrated in FIG. 7, where three cells are contained in one container. Cells 1, 2 and 3, each comprise a charge assembly and discharging assembly, and each is separated by a wall 112 which is impermeable to electrolyte such that there is no electrochemical interference between the cells.” Zhang [0082] This functions as the first enclosure holding at least one of each of the plurality of electrochemical cells, and the housing containing all of the cells functions as the second enclosure—see Zhang figure 7 below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
350
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first end having a first diameter and the second end having a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter. (Zhang figure 8e depicts a pipe 609 having a diameter, and discloses that the purpose of the pipe is to circulate electrolyte among the system. By combining the tubular channel of Zhang with the sloped channel of Kreiner, a combination would be formed where the two ends of the channel would have different diameters, with the first being greater than the second.)
Kreiner and Zhang are considered to be analogous for the reasons provided above, for claim 1. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kreiner to include both a first and second enclosure of Zhang to improve the capacity of the battery (“The cells in this embodiment can be connected in series to give a higher voltage of the system contained in the container.” Zhang [0082]). It would additionally have been obvious to modify the channels of Kreiner to have the tubular shape of Zhang as described above both regarding claim 1 and in the response to arguments.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Kreiner teaches all of the additional elements of claim 15:
The electrochemical flow battery system according to claim 14, wherein the plurality of electrochemical cells is a plurality of zinc bromide battery cells. (“The metallic layer may be formed from zinc disposed in the first phase of the electrolyte as zinc bromide.” Kreiner [0043])
Regarding claim 16, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Kreiner teaches all of the additional elements of claim 16:
The electrochemical flow battery system according to claim 14, further including one or more control modules, communication modules, thermal management modules, battery management modules, inverters, or combinations thereof. (“The flow battery system 400 may include one or more controllers 402, which may be used, for example, for controlling a rate of the pump 138. The controller 402 may be a digital or analog circuit, or may be a computer.” Kreiner [0057])
Claim(s) 3, 4, 11, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiner (US 20170222246 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20150056524 A1) and further in view of Steingart (US 20200036046 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 3:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein the pair of electrodes include at least one of about 30 wt% graphite, up to about 50 wt% disordered carbon, up to about 50 wt% PAN based carbon fiber, one or more halogen stable polymers, and a transition metal impurity concentration less than about 100 ppm
However, Steingart teaches all of the elements of claim 3 that are not found in Kreiner:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein the pair of electrodes include at least one of about 30 wt% graphite, up to about 50 wt% disordered carbon, up to about 50 wt% PAN based carbon fiber, one or more halogen stable polymers, and a transition metal impurity concentration less than about 100 ppm (“With reference to FIG. 2A, a side view of a schematic representation of an exemplary zinc-bromine battery (MA-ZBB) 200 is shown. Battery 200, as illustrated, includes holder 210 (e.g., formed of glass) in which electrolyte 206 (e.g., a 18 ml solution of 2M ZnBr.sub.2(aq)) is disposed. A first lead (negative terminal) is shown coupled to electrode 204 (e.g., anode) formed using a carbon cloth and configured to hang on top of electrolyte 206 (e.g., with an approximately 2 cm.sup.2 area exposed to the electrolyte). A second lead (positive terminal) is shown coupled to electrode 202 (e.g., cathode) formed as a foam electrode (e.g., a carbon or a fluorinated polymer such as a polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) foam composite),” Steingart [0048]. In this case, PVDF functions as a halogen stable polymer.)
Steingart is considered to be analogous to Kreiner because it is within the same field of batteries containing zinc-bromine components in the electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrodes of Kreiner to include a halogen stable polymer in order to improve the overall performance of the system. (“Exemplary aspects are also directed to techniques for tracking and improving performance of exemplary batteries.” Steingart [0002]) This would be a simple modification of including a known substance to achieve expected results, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, no additional modifications would be made to meet the limitations, and therefore no further motivation is required.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 4:
The energy storage system according to claim 3, wherein the one or more halogen stable polymers include polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), or combinations thereof.
However, Steingart teaches all of the elements of claim 4 that are not found in Kreiner:
The energy storage system according to claim 3, wherein the one or more halogen stable polymers include polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), or combinations thereof. (“With reference to FIG. 2A, a side view of a schematic representation of an exemplary zinc-bromine battery (MA-ZBB) 200 is shown. Battery 200, as illustrated, includes holder 210 (e.g., formed of glass) in which electrolyte 206 (e.g., a 18 ml solution of 2M ZnBr.sub.2(aq)) is disposed. A first lead (negative terminal) is shown coupled to electrode 204 (e.g., anode) formed using a carbon cloth and configured to hang on top of electrolyte 206 (e.g., with an approximately 2 cm.sup.2 area exposed to the electrolyte). A second lead (positive terminal) is shown coupled to electrode 202 (e.g., cathode) formed as a foam electrode (e.g., a carbon or a fluorinated polymer such as a polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) foam composite),” Steingart [0048]. In this case, PVDF functions as a halogen stable polymer.)
Regarding claim 11, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 11:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, further including a separator disposed between the pair of electrodes.
However, Steingart teaches all of the elements of claim 11 that are not found in Kreiner:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, further including a separator disposed between the pair of electrodes. (“hybrid flow battery system 100 comprises at least one pump to move the bromine/bromide catholyte from catholyte tank 102 and to move the zinc from anolyte tank 104 into reactor 106. Reactor 106 comprises separator 110 (e.g., a membrane formed by Nafion or microporous polyethylene) to prevent anolyte/catholyte crossover.” Steingart [0013])
Steingart and Kreiner are analogous for the reasons provided above, regarding claim 3. It would have been additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow battery structure of Kreiner to include a separator in between the pair of electrodes to prevent anolyte/catholyte crossover, and therefore improve battery stability and longevity (“Reactor 106 comprises separator 110 (e.g., a membrane formed by Nafion or microporous polyethylene) to prevent anolyte/catholyte crossover.” Steingart [0013])
Regarding claim 12, no additional modifications would be made to meet the limitations, and therefore no further motivation is required.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 12:
The energy storage system according to claim 11, wherein the separator is composed of glass fiber, glass frit, ceramic frit, polypropylene, polyethylene, PVDF, Nafion* or other ion-selective membrane, carbon or graphite, or combinations thereof. [Princeton]
However, Steingart teaches all of the elements of claim 11 that are not found in Kreiner:
The energy storage system according to claim 11, wherein the separator is composed of glass fiber, glass frit, ceramic frit, polypropylene, polyethylene, PVDF, Nafion* or other ion-selective membrane, carbon or graphite, or combinations thereof. (“Reactor 106 comprises separator 110 (e.g., a membrane formed by Nafion or microporous polyethylene) to prevent anolyte/catholyte crossover.” Steingart [0013])
Regarding claim 20, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 20:
The electrochemical flow battery system according to claim 14, wherein the system is pumpless.
However, Steingart teaches all of the elements of claim 20 that are not found in Kreiner:
The electrochemical flow battery system according to claim 14, wherein the system is pumpless. (“Exemplary zinc-bromine battery designs eliminate the need for pumps and membranes, as well as for complexing agents that are seen in the traditional zinc-bromine systems, which also eliminates accompanying costs and failure points associated with the traditional zinc-bromine systems.” Steingart [0039])
Steingart and Kreiner are analogous for the reasons provided above, regarding claim 3. It would have been additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow battery structure of Kreiner with the pump-less design of Steingart in order to lower costs and eliminate failure points (“Exemplary zinc-bromine battery designs eliminate the need for pumps and membranes, as well as for complexing agents that are seen in the traditional zinc-bromine systems, which also eliminates accompanying costs and failure points associated with the traditional zinc-bromine systems.” Steingart [0039])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiner (US 20170222246 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20150056524 A1) and further in view of Hudak (US 20180075982 A1)
Regarding claim 5, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 5:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte includes between about 2M to about 5M zinc bromide salt, between about 1M and about 4M potassium chloride, potassium bromide, or combinations thereof, less than about 0.1iM sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, or combinations thereof, up to about 10 wto fumed silica; up to about 3M zinc chloride, zinc sulfate, zinc acetate, or combinations thereof, up to about 3M calcium chloride, calcium bromide, calcium sulfate, magnesium chloride, magnesium bromide, magnesium sulfate, aluminum chloride, aluminum bromide, aluminum sulfate, or combinations thereof, less than about 200 ppm bismuth bromide/chloride, lead(II) bromide/chloride, tin bromide/chloride, indium bromide/chloride, silver bromide/chloride, or combinations thereof, less than about 5 wt% organic zinc leveling agents, and less than about 1 wt% ionic surfactant.
However, Hudak teaches all of the elements of claim 5 that are not found in Kreiner. Specifically, Hudak teaches an electrolyte with the desired properties:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte includes between about 2M to about 5M zinc bromide salt, between about 1M and about 4M potassium chloride, potassium bromide, or combinations thereof, less than about 0.1iM sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, or combinations thereof, up to about 10 wto fumed silica; up to about 3M zinc chloride, zinc sulfate, zinc acetate, or combinations thereof, up to about 3M calcium chloride, calcium bromide, calcium sulfate, magnesium chloride, magnesium bromide, magnesium sulfate, aluminum chloride, aluminum bromide, aluminum sulfate, or combinations thereof, less than about 200 ppm bismuth bromide/chloride, lead(II) bromide/chloride, tin bromide/chloride, indium bromide/chloride, silver bromide/chloride, or combinations thereof, less than about 5 wt% organic zinc leveling agents, and less than about 1 wt% ionic surfactant. (“The electrolyte for characterization was an aqueous solution of 1M KCl,” Hudak [0083])
Hudak is considered to be analogous to Kreiner because it is within the same field of energy storage devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Kreiner to comprise of 1M KCl, as taught by Hudak, in order to improve the energy storage and mechanical characteristics of the system (“This disclosure relates to structural supercapacitors having high energy storage and high mechanical characteristics.” Hudak [0001] and “The structure of a typical supercapacitor includes a separator sandwiched between two electrodes and a liquid electrolyte ionically connecting both electrodes.” Hudak [0003]). This would be a simple substitution of one known electrolyte for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 6-8, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiner (US 20170222246 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20150056524 A1) and further in view of Fujimoto (US 20130252044 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 6. Specifically, while Kreiner teaches the flow shaping baffle to be in between the two electrodes, separated from the cathode only by a connector 60, the exact dimensions are not specified:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein the flow shaping baffle is positioned between the pair electrodes and between about 0.25 cm and about 3 cm from the cathode.
However, Fujimoto teaches all of the elements of claim 6 that are not found in Kreiner. Specifically, Fujimoto teaches a gap between a porous electrode and a baffle that meets the claimed range, and additionally teaches that optimization of this distance is routine in the art, and therefore one skilled in the art would be capable of altering this in order to improve results:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein the flow shaping baffle is positioned between the pair electrodes and between about 0.25 cm and about 3 cm from the cathode. (“Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), the potential impact of a separate porous restriction layer 114, the effect of any gap between the restriction layer 114 and the porous electrode 102 and the effect of an additional baffle structure in the gap were analyzed. … (5) a non-conductive porous layer 114 located with a 1 mm gap between the non-conductive porous layer 114 and the porous electrode 102 and a baffle structure of 0.5 mm wide junction ribs 110 (or additional insulating baffles) separated 4.5 mm apart” Fujimoto [0041]. In this case, the additional insulating baffles 4.5mm apart from the porous electrode would anticipate the claimed range of the requisite distance between the flow shaping baffle and the cathode.)
Fujimoto is considered to be analogous to Kreiner because they are both within the same field of flow batteries containing flow shaping devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow battery structure of Kreiner to place the baffle between 0.25 and 3cm away from the porous electrode both because this is within the range taught by Fujimoto and because Fujimoto teaches the use of computational fluid dynamics to determine the optimum ranges for the placement of baffle/rib/channels/electrodes in a flow battery, thus demonstrating that it is within the scope of one of ordinary skill to optimize this distance in a routine optimization fashion.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 18, and 19, the same modification/optimization would meet all of the additional limitations, and therefore no further modification or motivation would be needed.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 7. Specifically, while Kreiner teaches the flow shaping baffle to be in between the two electrodes, separated from the cathode only by a connector 60, the exact dimensions are not specified:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein the pair of electrodes are separated by between about 0.5 cm and about 3 cm.
However, Fujimoto teaches all of the elements of claim 7 that are not found in Kreiner. Specifically, Fujimoto teaches a gap between a porous electrode and a baffle that meets the claimed range, and additionally teaches that optimization of this distance is routine in the art, and therefore one skilled in the art would be capable of altering this in order to improve results:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein the pair of electrodes are separated by between about 0.5 cm and about 3 cm. (“Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), the potential impact of a separate porous restriction layer 114, the effect of any gap between the restriction layer 114 and the porous electrode 102 and the effect of an additional baffle structure in the gap were analyzed. … (4) a non-conductive porous layer 114 located with a 1 mm gap between the non-conductive porous layer 114 and the porous electrode 102 and a baffle structure of 1 mm wide junction ribs 110 (or additional insulating baffles) separated 9 mm apart,” Fujimoto [0041]. In this case, the additional insulating baffles 9 mm apart from the porous electrode would anticipate the claimed range of the requisite distance between the flow shaping baffle and the cathode.)
Regarding claim 8, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 8. Specifically, while Kreiner teaches the flow shaping baffle to be in between the two electrodes, separated from the cathode only by a connector 60, the exact dimensions are not specified:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein each channel in the plurality of channels has an average width below about 3 cm.
However, Fujimoto teaches all of the elements of claim 8 that are not found in Kreiner. Specifically, Fujimoto teaches a gap between a porous electrode and a baffle and therefore a channel that meets the claimed width range, and additionally teaches that optimization of this distance is routine in the art, and therefore one skilled in the art would be capable of altering this in order to improve results:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein each channel in the plurality of channels has an average width below about 3 cm. (“Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), the potential impact of a separate porous restriction layer 114, the effect of any gap between the restriction layer 114 and the porous electrode 102 and the effect of an additional baffle structure in the gap were analyzed. … (4) a non-conductive porous layer 114 located with a 1 mm gap between the non-conductive porous layer 114 and the porous electrode 102 and a baffle structure of 1 mm wide junction ribs 110 (or additional insulating baffles) separated 9 mm apart,” Fujimoto [0041]. In this case, each channel would be the 1 mm gap as stated by Fujimoto, which would anticipate the claimed width of each channel of the plurality of channels.)
Regarding claim 18, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 18. Specifically, while Kreiner teaches the flow shaping baffle to be in between the two electrodes, separated from the cathode only by a connector 60, the exact dimensions are not specified:
The electrochemical flow battery system according to claim 14, wherein the flow shaping baffle in each of the plurality of electrochemical cells is positioned between the pair electrodes and between about 0.25 cm and about 3 cm from the cathode.
However, Fujimoto teaches all of the elements of claim 18 that are not found in Kreiner. Specifically, Fujimoto teaches a gap between a porous electrode and a baffle that meets the claimed range, and additionally teaches that optimization of this distance is routine in the art, and therefore one skilled in the art would be capable of altering this in order to improve results:
The electrochemical flow battery system according to claim 14, wherein the flow shaping baffle in each of the plurality of electrochemical cells is positioned between the pair electrodes and between about 0.25 cm and about 3 cm from the cathode. (“Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), the potential impact of a separate porous restriction layer 114, the effect of any gap between the restriction layer 114 and the porous electrode 102 and the effect of an additional baffle structure in the gap were analyzed. … (4) a non-conductive porous layer 114 located with a 1 mm gap between the non-conductive porous layer 114 and the porous electrode 102 and a baffle structure of 1 mm wide junction ribs 110 (or additional insulating baffles) separated 9 mm apart,” Fujimoto [0041]. In this case, the additional insulating baffles 9 mm apart from the porous electrode would anticipate the claimed range of the requisite distance between the flow shaping baffle and the cathode.)
Regarding claim 19, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 19. Specifically, while Kreiner teaches the flow shaping baffle to be in between the two electrodes, separated from the cathode only by a connector 60, the exact dimensions are not specified:
The electrochemical flow battery system according to claim 14, wherein each channel in the plurality of channels has an average width below about 3 cm.
However, Fujimoto teaches all of the elements of claim 19 that are not found in Kreiner. Specifically, Fujimoto teaches a gap between a porous electrode and a baffle and therefore a channel that meets the claimed width range, and additionally teaches that optimization of this distance is routine in the art, and therefore one skilled in the art would be capable of altering this in order to improve results:
The electrochemical flow battery system according to claim 14, wherein each channel in the plurality of channels has an average width below about 3 cm. (“Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), the potential impact of a separate porous restriction layer 114, the effect of any gap between the restriction layer 114 and the porous electrode 102 and the effect of an additional baffle structure in the gap were analyzed. … (4) a non-conductive porous layer 114 located with a 1 mm gap between the non-conductive porous layer 114 and the porous electrode 102 and a baffle structure of 1 mm wide junction ribs 110 (or additional insulating baffles) separated 9 mm apart,” Fujimoto [0041]. In this case, each channel would be the 1 mm gap as stated by Fujimoto, which would anticipate the claimed width of each channel of the plurality of channels.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiner (US 20170222246 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20150056524 A1) and further in view of Beddoes (US 20180030603 A1)
Regarding claim 9, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 9:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of electrochemical cells includes male connections, female connections, or combinations thereof.
However, Beddoes teaches all of the elements of claim 9 that are not found in Kreiner:
The energy storage system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of electrochemical cells includes male connections, female connections, or combinations thereof. (“In other embodiments, the electrodes can be drilled at selected locations and nonconductive bumpers 255 installed to maintain the spacing to adjacent electrode surfaces, as shown in FIG. 11. The bumpers 255 can be molded non-conductive polymer, for example, PTFE or PVDF, and designed to snap in place. For example, the bumpers may include male and female portions, 255A, 255B, the male portion 255A configured to snap in place into the female portion 255B with the male portion 255A disposed on a first surface of the electrode 205, 210, and/or 235 (when present), and the female portion disposed on an opposite surface of the electrode 205, 210, and/or 235 (when present).” Beddoes [0174])
Beddoes is considered to be analogous to Kreiner because they are both related to electronically connecting an anode and a cathode together. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow battery structure of Kreiner to include male and female connections between the plurality of electrochemical cells in order to effectively maintain spacing between adjacent electrode surfaces (“In other embodiments, the electrodes can be drilled at selected locations and nonconductive bumpers 255 installed to maintain the spacing to adjacent electrode surfaces, as shown in FIG. 11.” Beddoes [0174])
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiner (US 20170222246 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20150056524 A1), further in view of Steingart (US 20200036046 A1), and further in view of Miller (US 20170104199 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kreiner teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Kreiner is silent on the following elements of claim 13:
The energy storage system according to claim 11, wherein the separator and the flow shaping baffle are an integrated structure.
However, Miller teaches all of the elements of claim 13 that are not found in Kreiner. Specifically, Miller teaches a combination of a baffle used with a separator in order to more effectively harness the kinetic energy within the battery:
The energy storage system according to claim 11, wherein the separator and the flow shaping baffle are an integrated structure. (“FIGS. 33A-33C illustrate the head space of batteries with splash baffles according to exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure. These splash baffles may be used with any of the exemplary separators described herein.” Miller [0165])
Miller is considered to be analogous to Kreiner because they are both within the same field of batteries/energy storage systems containing liquid electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baffle structure of Kreiner to integrate it with a separator in order to more effectively harness the energy of the liquid motion within the battery system (“In these embodiments, the head space of each battery is optimized so as to better harness the power or energy (both horizontal and vertical energy) of the moving or sloshing electrolyte” Miller [0165])
Conclusion
The following references were found in an updated search and considered to be relevant, but not used in rejection since the previous rejection was maintained:
Gow (US 20030232239 A1) –teaches a baffle/flow system that looks similar to that in the claimed invention
PNG
media_image2.png
476
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
764
697
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Winter (US 20110223451 A1)—teaches a flow battery including a reservoir with baffle plates
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights