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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bromine sequestration agent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to a liquid for sequestration, but does not explicitly say it is used for sequestration of bromine. For examination purposes, a “liquid used for sequestration” and a “bromine sequestration agent” will be treated as the same part.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the bromine sequestration agent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to a liquid for sequestration, but does not explicitly say it is used for sequestration of bromine. For examination purposes, a “liquid used for sequestration” and a “bromine sequestration agent” will be treated as the same part. The examiner suggests adding “bromine” to claim 1(d) to rectify the issue.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the bromine sequestration agent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to a liquid for sequestration, but does not explicitly say it is used for sequestration of bromine. For examination purposes, a “liquid used for sequestration” and a “bromine sequestration agent” will be treated as the same part. The examiner suggests adding “bromine” to claim 1(d) to rectify the issue.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the bromine sequestration agent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to a liquid for sequestration, but does not explicitly say it is used for sequestration of bromine. For examination purposes, a “liquid used for sequestration” and a “bromine sequestration agent” will be treated as the same part. The examiner suggests adding “bromine” to claim 1(d) to rectify the issue.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the bromine sequestration agent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to a liquid for sequestration, but does not explicitly say it is used for sequestration of bromine. For examination purposes, a “liquid used for sequestration” and a “bromine sequestration agent” will be treated as the same part. The examiner suggests adding “bromine” to claim 1(d) to rectify the issue.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the bromine sequestration agent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to a liquid for sequestration, but does not explicitly say it is used for sequestration of bromine. For examination purposes, a “liquid used for sequestration” and a “bromine sequestration agent” will be treated as the same part. The examiner suggests adding “bromine” to claim 1(d) to rectify the issue.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the bromine sequestration agent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to a liquid for sequestration, but does not explicitly say it is used for sequestration of bromine. For examination purposes, a “liquid used for sequestration” and a “bromine sequestration agent” will be treated as the same part. The examiner suggests adding “bromine” to claim 1(d) to rectify the issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 8-9, & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sahu (U.S. Patent No. 11,631,903 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Sahu teaches a battery (Fig. 1; Column 1, lines 6-10), comprising: an anode (Anode-side subassembly 181) comprised of an electrically conductive material (Column 8, lines 35-37); a cathode (Cathode-side subassembly 191) comprised of an electrically conductive carbon-based material (Column 3, lines 17-29); an electrolyte (Column 3, lines 40-44); and a liquid (Column 5, lines 8-13) used for sequestration (Column 3, lines 40-44); wherein, the cathode is in contact with, or partially immersed in the liquid used for sequestration and the electrolyte (Column 4, lines 17-33; the sequestration agent is added to the electrolyte, which is in contact with the cathode; thus, the cathode is in contact with both substances).
Regarding claim 2, Sahu teaches the battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cathode comprises an insulated portion (Cathode insulating mesh 107) and an uninsulated portion (Column 4, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 3, Sahu teaches the battery as claimed in claim 2, wherein the insulated portion of the cathode is electrically insulated from the electrolyte (Column 4, lines 23-33; electrolyte squeezed out of the insulating mesh) except at a reaction interface (Column 6, lines 16-21; Cathode graphite felt 108) with the sequestration medium.
Regarding claim 4, Sahu teaches the battery as claimed in claim 2, wherein the uninsulated portion of the cathode does not extend more than 2 cm out of the agent (Column 4, lines 17-33; cathode is oversaturated by the electrolyte and compressed, cathode does not extend out).
Regarding claim 5, Sahu teaches the battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cathode material comprises carbon felt (Carbon graphite felt 108).
Regarding claim 8, Sahu teaches the battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the battery is a zinc bromine battery (Column 1, lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 9, Sahu teaches the battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrolyte comprises of zinc bromide (Column 3, lines 40-45) and water (Column 5, lines 8-10; MEPBr is added to the electrolyte with respect to water, therefore water is present).
Regarding claim 11, Sahu teaches the battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the bromine sequestration agent is liquid at ambient temperatures (Column 5, lines 8-17).
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.
Claims 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahu in view of Gau et al. (TW M305445U).
Regarding claim 6, Sahu fails to teach the cathode material further comprising an electrically insulated metal wire in conjunction with the cathode material to create a circuit.
However, Gau teaches a cathode material comprising an electrically insulated metal wire (Cathode wire 21, insulating sleeve 22; Fig. 1) in conjunction with the selected cathode material to create an electrically conductive circuit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode taught by Sahu by incorporating an electrically insulated metal wire, as taught by Gau. Doing so would prevent the battery from short circuiting, as stated in Gau (Page 2, lines 35-37).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sahu teaches that the electrically insulated metal is copper, not tantalum. However, Gau teaches a tantalum insulated wire for a cathode (Page 5, lines 9-10: “tantalum cathode wire”). The examiner notes that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facia obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, it would be obvious to replace the copper wire of Sahu with the tantalum wire of Gau, because tantalum is identified as a suitable replacement for an electrically insulated wire.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahu in view of Maschmeyer et al. (WO 2020186307A).
Regarding claim 10, Sahu fails to teach the electrolyte as an aqueous based gel.
However, Maschmeyer teaches an electrolyte (Abstract), which is an aqueous based gel (Par. 00011; Par. 0004-0007 elaborate on suitability in zinc batteries).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte taught by Sahu by making it an aqueous gel, as taught by Maschmeyer, in order to improve energy efficiency, storage capability, and transport of Br2, as stated in Maschmeyer (Par. 0007).
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahu in view of Chiang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,637,341 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Sahu fails to teach a bromine sequestration agent which is nonpolar at ambient temperatures.
However, Chiang teaches a bromine sequestration agent which is nonpolar at ambient temperatures (Column 4, lines 16-21; tetrachloroethylene; Column 11, lines 62-63: tetrachloroethylene is used as a halogenated solvent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bromine sequestration agent taught by Sahu to be a nonpolar molecule, as taught by Chiang, in order to ensure a multi-phase solution, as stated in Chiang (Column 11, line 67-Column 12, line 3).
Regarding claim 13, Sahu fails to teach the bromine sequestration agent being nearly or fully immiscible in water or aqueous-based gel.
However, Chiang teaches a bromine sequestration agent (Column 4, lines 16-21: tetrachloroethylene) which is immiscible in water or aqueous-based gel at ambient temperatures (Column 4, line 67 – Column 5, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bromine sequestration agent taught by Sahu to be a liquid immiscible in water or gel, as taught by Chiang, in order to create phase boundaries in the electrolyte, as stated in Chiang (Column 3, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 15, Sahu fails to teach the bromine sequestration agent being one or a combination of tetrabromoethane, tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, tetrachloroethane, trichloroethane, or tribromoethane.
However, Chiang teaches a tetrachloroethylene bromine sequestration agent (Column 4, lines 16-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bromine sequestration agent taught by Sahu to be tetrachloroethylene, as taught by Chiang, in order to dissolve reaction products and separate active reactants, as stated in Chiang (Column 9, lines 52-60).
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose tetrabromoethane out of the previously claimed substances, as the compounds are all halogenated solvents with similar properties. Thus, the results of bromine sequestration could have been predicted by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Sahu fails to teach the bromine sequestration agent being comprised of tetrachloroethylene.
However, Chiang teaches a tetrachloroethylene bromine sequestration agent (Column 4, lines 16-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bromine sequestration agent taught by Sahu to be tetrachloroethylene, as taught by Chiang, in order to dissolve reaction products and separate active reactants, as stated in Chiang (Column 9, lines 52-60).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728