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 December 30, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are examined herein.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108565473. Regarding claim 1, CN ‘473 is directed to a redox flow battery comprising an anolyte and a catholyte (see page 2 of attached translation). Regarding claims 1 and 3, the flow battery comprises a composite electrode which comprises a first electrode (3) and a second electrode (3), each made of graphite felt (middle of page 2, top of page 3, Figure 1). Regarding claim 1, the composite electrode comprises a base (1, 2) located between the first and second electrodes. The base comprises a thermoplastic material (1) and conductive elements (2) disposed in the thermoplastic material (bottom of page 5, top of page 6). The first and second electrodes are thermally bonded to the base by heating the base to soften the thermoplastic and the electrodes are pressed into the thermoplastic (page 6). The battery comprises a first half cell in which the fist electrode is in contact with the anolyte and a second half cell in which the second electrode is in contact with the catholyte (page 2). Regarding claim 2, the thermoplastic is PP or PE (page 4). Regarding claim 3, the conductive elements comprise carbon fibers (page 6). Regarding claim 5, the thermoplastic is heated above its glass transition temperature because it flows into the graphite felt (page 6). Regarding claim 6, the base is heated to a temperature of 201-270 C (page 6). Regarding claims 7-9, the composite electrode is formed by hot pressing in a mold. Although the reference does not appear to teach the specific process limitations in claims 7-9, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also MPEP §2113.
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108565473.
The reference is applied for the reasons stated above. However, the reference does not expressly teach that the base comprises 10-70 wt% thermoplastic (claim 10), nor that the base has a thickness of 0.1-5 mm (claim 11).
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the reference provides guidance as to the relative thicknesses/amounts of the components in the composite electrode. On page 5 it is disclosed that the graphite sheet is 6.5 or 7 mm (pages 6 and 7), the plastic sheet is 0.2-0.35 times the thickness of the graphite sheet, and the carbon cloth is 1-1.2 times the thickness of the plastic sheet. The thickness of the base (which includes the carbon cloth plus two plastic sheets prior to melting) could therefore fall within, or overlap with, the claimed range of 0.1 to 5 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 191USPQ 90; In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934).
Regarding claim 11 (10-70% thermoplastic in the base), the thicknesses discussed above would inform the relative amounts of each component. Furthermore, the skilled person could optimize the amount of thermoplastic to be the appropriate amount without providing too much. The use of too much thermoplastic might, for example, impede electrode conductivity and functionality. As such, the claimed range is rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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 phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
February 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights