Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status.
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/14/2025. Claims 1-10 were pending. Claims 2,3 and 5-7 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are now pending. Claims 1-10 are presented for examination. Applicant's arguments have been considered.
Response to Amendment
Rejection of claims 2,3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Office Action 07/14/2025 is withdrawn in respond to Remarks/Amendments from 10/14/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Independent claim 1 sets forth a method comprising, inter alia: heating high-purity vanadium pentoxide and reducing it using a reducing gas to obtain a low-valence vanadium oxide; and mixing the low-valence vanadium oxide with an activating agent, and then heating and activating to obtain a vanadium-containing paste electrolyte. Li describes a method for preparing a liquid vanadium electrolyte via direct chemical reduction and liquid-phase processing. However, contrary to the PTO's assertions, Li fails to teach a step of obtaining a paste electrolyte as required by claim 1. Such a step is neither taught nor suggested by Li”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly (please see Examiner’s marked claim 1 below) independent claim 1 claims a method for preparing a vanadium electrolyte (see preamble) and the step of dissolving the vanadium-containing paste electrolyte to obtain a vanadium electrolyte as a final product, not vanadium-containing paste electrolyte. One skilled in the art would interpret term dissolving as formation of solution. The vanadium-containing paste electrolyte is an intermediate in the claimed process for the preparing a vanadium electrolyte, the same electrolyte disclosed by Li. Moreover, Li teaches the step of washing and filtering the material after washing and filtering in step (2) with 1000 mL of 5 wt. % dilute sulfuric acid three times, and then step of complete dissolving of product after said step. It means that intermediate after this step is not completely dissolved and as such interpreted as a paste (see para 97 and 98).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Based on argument above, the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 set forth in the Office Action from 07/14/2025 is maintained and provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim a recites the limitation " a vanadium electrolyte " in preamble and in line 5 (should be the vanadium electrolyte) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 directly or indirectly and fall therewith.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN106684421 to Li (Li, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method for preparing a vanadium electrolyte (claim 1) for an all-vanadium redox flow battery (para 4), the method comprising: heating high-purity vanadium pentoxide, and reducing the high-purity vanadium pentoxide using a reducing gas (para 95) to obtain a low-valence vanadium oxide (para 75); mixing the low-valence vanadium oxide with an activating agent (para 98), and then heating and activating to obtain a vanadium-containing paste electrolyte (claim 1 step 4); and adding water to dissolve the vanadium-containing paste electrolyte to obtain a vanadium electrolyte with an average valence of vanadium between positive three and positive four (para 71). Therefore, claim 1 is anticipated by Li.
Alternatively, Li discloses steps adding water following by step of heating however or within one step , selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975,5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930); MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2 and 3, Li discloses heating of vanadium pentoxide at 500 oC (para 77) for 1 h. It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Since the method of Li substantially similar to that as claimed, a performance the performance of the vanadium electrolyte inherently meets performance requirements of GB/T37204-2018. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106684421 to Li.
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Li does not expressly disclose wherein the time of heating and activating is 1 to 5 h in mixing the low-valence vanadium oxide with an activating agent. However, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the time of heating based on pressure of reducing gas, purity of the of vanadium pentoxide and temperature as by routine optimization.
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Li does not expressly disclose wherein , wherein a weight ratio of the sulfuric acid and the low-valence vanadium oxide is (1-5 ):1 and a weight percentage of vanadium in the vanadium-containing paste electrolyte is 13% to 30%, and wherein a weight percentage of sulfuric acid is 60% to 80%, and wherein the dissolution temperature is 20 to 90°C, the time for dissolution is 1 to 3 h, and a weight ratio of water to the vanadium-containing paste electrolyte is (3-7):1 while adding the water. However, Li teaches that quality (purity of the electrolyte depend on concentrating of sulfuric acid (para 37, 38) and as such on weight ratio of sulfuric acid and low-valence vanadium oxide (implicitly), thus Li clearly teaching that said ratio is a result effective variable. It has been held by the courts that discovering an optimum value or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and thus not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the weight ratio of the sulfuric acid and the low-valence vanadium oxide based on concentration sulfuric acid in order to obtain the high quality electrolyte.
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Li also discloses the step comprising addition of water and sulfuric acid followed by the heating (activation step) (para 62, 71) until a residue will completely dissolve forming high purity electrolyte. On skilled of the art would understand that completion of said step depends on heating temperature, time of heating and a weight ratio of the low-valence vanadium oxide concentration (i.e. amount of sulfuric acid and water. In other word the quality of the electrolyte depend on the parameters above and as such is a result effective variable. It has been held by the courts that discovering an optimum value or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and thus not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art at the time the invention was filed to optimize a weight percentage of and weight percentage as well as time and temperature of dissolution by a routine optimization.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106684421 to Li in view of US 20190036134 to Zhu.
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Li does not expressly disclose a step wherein the reducing gas is any one of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, or sulfur dioxide in heating the high-purity vanadium pentoxide.
Zhu teaches method for preparing a high-activity specific valence electrolyte of an all-vanadium redox flow battery (Abstract). Zhu also teaches the step of reducing vanadium pentoxide using a reducing agent, wherein a mixture of one or two selected from hydrogen gas, ammonia gas, electric furnace, gas, converter gas, blast furnace gas, coke oven gas and gas producer gas (Claim 5) at 400oC (para 90, re claim 6). Therefore, ammonia gas and hydrogen can be used together or are mutually replaceable. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add hydrogen to ammonia or replace ammonia gas of Li with hydrogen as taught by Zhao because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Moreover, the resulting product of reduction of vanadium pentoxide is water. That makes step of reduction more environment friendly.
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein, including reducing of the vanadium pentoxide with reducing gas in the sealed furnace at 500 oC (para 77,) for 1 h. Li does not expressly disclose the step wherein the reducing gas flow through the furnace.
Zhu teaches method for preparing a high-activity specific valence electrolyte of an all-vanadium redox flow battery (Abstract). Zhu also teaches the step of reducing vanadium pentoxide using a reducing agent (gas) which flow through the reactor for 1 h. Therefore, passing reducing gas through the reactor in the step of reducing vanadium pentoxide is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Li by introducing the step of flowing of the reducing gas through the reactor, as taught by Zhou Zhao because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding the limitation “ the flow rate of the reducing gas is 100 to 500 mL/min”:
since the criticality of the flow rate of the reducing gas in the range from 100 (ml/min ?) to 500 mL/min -a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in modified Li, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was failed to optimize flow rate of the reducing gas based on nature of the gas, purity of the vanadium pentoxide as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure The First Office Action for CN202210069306 and The second Office Action for CN202210069306.
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 ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751