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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-14, 16-18, 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heidebrecht et al. (US 2019/0089014A1).
Regarding claim 1, Heidebrecht discloses a molten metal battery system (see Title, Abstract, [0032], Fig. 1-5) comprising:
a plurality of secondary cells electrically connected in series with each other (cell electrically connected in series [0031]) and comprising a plurality of molten metal anodes arranged fluidly in parallel with each other (Fig. 2-5 show anodes arranged in parallel);
a plurality of electrically isolated molten metal reservoirs (first store 7 for anode material [0061], Fig. 1-5), each of the molten metal reservoirs fluidly connected to a corresponding secondary cell of the plurality of secondary cells and configured to exchange molten metal with the corresponding secondary cell while preventing electrical shunt current from flowing between the plurality of secondary cells via the molten metal (first store for anode material connected to anode space, Abstract, Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 2, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses the molten metal comprises molten sodium metal (molten alkali metal [0032], sodium [0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses the molten metal flows passively between the plurality of electrically isolated molten metal reservoirs and the plurality of secondary cells without requiring a powered component to drive flows of the molten metal (Fig. 2-5 show first store 7 positioned above cell 1).
Regarding claim 8, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses the plurality of secondary cells are configured to operate as a flow battery in: a charging mode in which the plurality of secondary cells consume electricity and produce the molten metal within the plurality of molten metal anodes; and a discharging mode in which the plurality of secondary cells consume the molten metal within the plurality of molten metal anodes and produce electricity (charging and discharging [0029], [0032], [0036]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses each of the plurality of secondary cells comprises: a cathode compartment containing a catholyte fluid (cathode space 11 [0062]); an anode compartment containing a molten metal anode of the plurality of molten metal anodes ([0032]); and an ion-selective membrane positioned between the cathode compartment and the anode compartment and configured to selectively transport metal ions between the cathode compartment and the anode compartment (solid electrolyte 3 [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 10, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses the plurality of secondary cells are configured to operate in a charging mode comprising: transporting the metal ions from the cathode compartment, through the ion-selective membrane, to the anode compartment; and reducing the metal ions within the anode compartment by combining the metal ions with electrons to produce the molten metal (charging and discharging [0029], [0032], [0036]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses the plurality of secondary cells are configured to operate in a discharging mode comprising: oxidizing the molten metal within the anode compartment to form the metal ions and discharge electrons; and transporting the metal ions from the anode compartment, through the ion-selective membrane, to the cathode compartment (charging and discharging [0029], [0032], [0036]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses an isolation plate located between adjacent secondary cells of the plurality of secondary cells and configured to electrically isolate the adjacent secondary cells from each other (all components to be enclosed by insulation [0096]).
Regarding claim 13, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses a plurality of battery strings electrically connected in series with each other; wherein each battery string of the plurality of battery strings comprises multiple unit cells including one of the plurality of secondary cells one or more additional secondary cells comprising one or more additional molten metal anodes (connect cells in series and connect a plurality of these series in parallel to form modules [0031]).
Regarding claim 14, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses the multiple unit cells within each string are electrically connected in parallel with each other; and the molten metal anodes within each string are maintained at substantially equal electrical potentials (connect cells in series and connect a plurality of these series in parallel to form modules [0031]).
Regarding claim 16, Heidebrecht discloses a molten metal battery system (see Title, Abstract, [0032], Fig. 1-5) comprising:
a plurality of secondary cells electrically connected in series with each other (cell electrically connected in series [0031]) and comprising a plurality of molten metal anodes arranged fluidly in parallel with each other (Fig. 2-5 show anodes arranged in parallel);
a molten metal storage vessel configured to store molten metal (first store 7 for anode material [0061], Fig. 1-5); and
a molten metal aggregator fluidly connected in series between the plurality of secondary cells and the molten metal storage vessel and configured to deliver the molten metal from the plurality of molten metal anodes to the metal storage vessel while preventing electrical shunt current from flowing between the plurality of secondary cells via the molten metal (first store for anode material connected to anode space, Abstract, Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 17, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses the molten metal comprises molten sodium metal (molten alkali metal [0032], sodium [0063]).
Regarding claim 18, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses the molten metal flows passively between the plurality of secondary cells, the molten metal aggregator, and the molten metal storage vessel without requiring a powered component to drive flows of the molten metal (Fig. 2-5 show first store 7 positioned above cell 1).
Regarding claim 22, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses each of the plurality of secondary cells comprises: a cathode compartment containing a catholyte fluid (cathode space 11 [0062]); an anode compartment containing a molten metal anode of the plurality of molten metal anodes ([0032]); and an ion-selective membrane positioned between the cathode compartment and the anode compartment and configured to selectively transport metal ions between the cathode compartment and the anode compartment (solid electrolyte 3 [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 23, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses the plurality of secondary cells are configured to operate as a molten metal production system by: transporting the metal ions from the cathode compartment, through the ion-selective membrane, to the anode compartment; reducing the metal ions within the anode compartment by combining the metal ions with electrons to produce the molten metal; and discharging the molten metal to the molten metal storage vessel (charging and discharging [0029], [0032], [0036]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 24, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses an isolation plate located between adjacent secondary cells of the plurality of secondary cells and configured to electrically isolate the adjacent secondary cells from each other (all components to be enclosed by insulation [0096]).
Regarding claim 25, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses a plurality of battery strings electrically connected in series with each other; wherein each battery string of the plurality of battery strings comprises multiple unit cells including one of the plurality of secondary cells one or more additional secondary cells comprising one or more additional molten metal anodes (connect cells in series and connect a plurality of these series in parallel to form modules [0031]).
Regarding claim 26, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Heidebrecht further discloses the multiple unit cells within each string are electrically connected in parallel with each other; and the molten metal anodes within each string are maintained at substantially equal electrical potentials (connect cells in series and connect a plurality of these series in parallel to form modules [0031]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7, 19-21, 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidebrecht et al. (US 2019/0089014A1), as applied to claims 1-3, 8-14, 16-18, 22-26 above, in view of CN110400952A, refer to English machine translation by EPO.
Regarding claim 4, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Heidebrecht does not further disclose a molten metal distributor fluidly connected in series between an external molten metal source and the plurality of secondary cells and configured to distribute the molten metal from the external molten metal source to the plurality of molten metal anodes while preventing the electrical shunt current from flowing between the plurality of secondary cells via the molten metal.
CN110400952A discloses a sodium fuel cell and battery stack comprising an insulation weeping pipe 1,1-1,1-2, anode feed runner 3 and anode feed back runner 4, wherein anode flow channel injects molten sodium by the first insulation weeping pipe 1-1 (see p.4-6, Fig. 4-5).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, modified Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN110400952A further discloses the molten metal distributor comprises a molten metal distribution drip feeder configured to: release droplets of the molten metal from an upper portion of the molten metal distributor; and allow the droplets of the molten metal to fall through an electrically insulating fluid within the molten metal distributor into a plurality of electrically isolated compartments located along a lower portion of the molten metal distributor (insulation weeping pipe 1,1-1,1-2 includes tube body with a drip hole 14, lumen 15 made of insulating material, see p.5, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN110400952A further discloses the molten metal distributor comprises: a molten metal inlet fluidly connected to the external metal source and configured to receive the molten metal into the molten metal distributor from the external metal source; a plurality of compartments electrically isolated from each other; and a plurality of molten metal outlets each fluidly connected to a corresponding compartment of the plurality of compartments and configured to deliver the molten metal from the corresponding compartment to a corresponding secondary cell of the plurality of secondary cells (insulation weeping pipe 1,1-1,1-2, anode feed runner 3 and anode feed back runner 4, wherein anode flow channel injects molten sodium by the first insulation weeping pipe 1-1, see p.4-6, Fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 7, modified Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN110400952A further discloses the molten metal distributor comprises a plurality of electrically isolating fittings coupled to the plurality of molten metal outlets and configured to prevent electrical shunt current from flowing between the plurality of secondary cells via a structure of the molten metal distributor (insulation weeping pipe 1,1-1,1-2 includes tube body with a drip hole 14, lumen 15 made of insulating material, see p.5, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Heidebrecht does not further disclose the molten metal aggregator comprises: a plurality of molten metal inlets, each molten metal inlet of the plurality of molten metal inlets fluidly connected to a corresponding secondary cell of the plurality of secondary cells and configured to receive the molten metal from the corresponding secondary cell; a molten metal collection chamber configured to receive the molten metal from each of the plurality of molten metal inlets and combine the molten metal into a single pool; and a molten metal outlet fluidly connected to the molten metal storage vessel and configured to deliver the molten metal from the molten metal collection chamber to the molten metal storage vessel.
CN110400952A discloses a sodium fuel cell and battery stack comprising an insulation weeping pipe 1,1-1,1-2, anode feed runner 3 and anode feed back runner 4, wherein anode flow channel injects molten sodium by the first insulation weeping pipe 1-1 (see p.4-6, Fig. 4-5).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 20, modified Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN110400952A further discloses the molten metal aggregator comprises a plurality of electrically isolating fittings coupled to the plurality of molten metal inlets and configured to prevent electrical shunt current from flowing between the plurality of secondary cells via a structure of the molten metal aggregator (insulation weeping pipe 1,1-1,1-2 includes tube body with a drip hole 14, lumen 15 made of insulating material, see p.5, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, modified Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN110400952A further discloses the molten metal aggregator comprises a molten metal aggregation drip feeder configured to: release droplets of the molten metal from an upper portion of the molten metal aggregator; and allow the droplets of the molten metal to fall through an electrically insulating fluid into a molten metal collection chamber located along a lower portion of the molten metal aggregator (insulation weeping pipe 1,1-1,1-2 includes tube body with a drip hole 14, lumen 15 made of insulating material, see p.5, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 28, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Heidebrecht does not further disclose a molten metal distributor fluidly connected in series between an external molten metal source and the plurality of secondary cells and configured to distribute the molten metal from the external molten metal source to the plurality of molten metal anodes while preventing the electrical shunt current from flowing between the plurality of secondary cells via the molten metal.
CN110400952A discloses a sodium fuel cell and battery stack comprising an insulation weeping pipe 1,1-1,1-2, anode feed runner 3 and anode feed back runner 4, wherein anode flow channel injects molten sodium by the first insulation weeping pipe 1-1 (see p.4-6, Fig. 4-5).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 29, modified Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN110400952A further discloses the molten metal distributor comprises a molten metal distribution drip feeder configured to: release droplets of the molten metal from an upper portion of the molten metal distributor; and allow the droplets of the molten metal to fall through an electrically insulating fluid within the molten metal distributor into a plurality of electrically isolated compartments located along a lower portion of the molten metal distributor (insulation weeping pipe 1,1-1,1-2 includes tube body with a drip hole 14, lumen 15 made of insulating material, see p.5, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 30, modified Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN110400952A further discloses the molten metal distributor comprises: a molten metal inlet fluidly connected to the external metal source and configured to receive the molten metal into the molten metal distributor from the external molten metal source; a plurality of compartments electrically isolated from each other; and a plurality of molten metal outlets each fluidly connected to a corresponding compartment of the plurality of compartments and configured to deliver the molten metal from the corresponding compartment to a corresponding secondary cell of the plurality of secondary cells (insulation weeping pipe 1,1-1,1-2, anode feed runner 3 and anode feed back runner 4, wherein anode flow channel injects molten sodium by the first insulation weeping pipe 1-1, see p.4-6, Fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 31, modified Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. CN110400952A further discloses the molten metal distributor comprises a plurality of electrically isolating fittings coupled to the plurality of molten metal outlets and configured to prevent electrical shunt current from flowing between the plurality of secondary cells via a structure of the molten metal distributor (insulation weeping pipe 1,1-1,1-2 includes tube body with a drip hole 14, lumen 15 made of insulating material, see p.5, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 15, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidebrecht et al. (US 2019/0089014A1), as applied to claims 1-3, 8-14, 16-18, 22-26 above, in view of GB2226441A.
Regarding claim 15, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Heidebrecht does not further disclose each string of the plurality of strings comprises a plurality of cathodes and a plurality of molten metal anodes arranged in an alternating sequence; and at least one of the plurality of cathodes or the plurality of molten metal anodes is shared by adjacent unit cells of the multiple unit cells.
GB2226441A discloses a high temperature rechargeable electrochemical power storage cell having a molten alkali metal anode, wherein the cell can be a composite cell in which cathode portions between anode portions are shared by the anode portions on opposite sides thereof (see p.1, Fig. 4).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 27, Heidebrecht discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Heidebrecht does not further disclose each string of the plurality of strings comprises a plurality of cathodes and a plurality of molten metal anodes arranged in an alternating sequence; and at least one of the plurality of cathodes or the plurality of molten metal anodes is shared by adjacent unit cells of the multiple unit cells.
GB2226441A discloses a high temperature rechargeable electrochemical power storage cell having a molten alkali metal anode, wherein the cell can be a composite cell in which cathode portions between anode portions are shared by the anode portions on opposite sides thereof (see p.1, Fig. 4).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 4/2/2026
Prosecution Insights