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 Interpretation
For the purposes of examination the phrase “in communication with” means connected in any way through any number of paths or apertures.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 10, and 14, the use of the phrase “arch-like” is indefinite as it is unclear what “like” is intended to convey. In this case “arch-like” is synonymous with “arch-type” and the addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955), see MPEP 2173.05.b. For the purposes of examination, “arch-like” is being interpreted as any path that has some form of loop, turn, or a series of turns resulting in a flow path turning greater than 90 degrees.
Claim 2 is further rejected due to the limitation of requiring the first channel aperture to be “not opposite” the third channel aperture. The end flow plates that the flow channels are a part of have already been established as opposite each other in respect to the cell stack, so any constituent parts of the respective end flow plates must necessarily be opposite each other. For the purposes of examination, a position “not opposite” is being interpreted as not directly mirrored across the cell.
Claim 5 is further rejected due to the phrase “a plurality of inlets” and “the third inlets”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the third inlets” in view of no third inlets being presented previously. For the sake of examination “a plurality of inlets” is being interpreted as “a plurality of third inlets”.
All other claims are being rejected under the same reason as described regarding claim 1 due their ultimate dependency upon or inclusion of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-4, 9, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US 20230327147 A1) in view of Cho et al. (KR 101742980 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Na teaches a cell stack of a flow battery with an end plate on both sides of the stack with cells in between (Na 0056 Fig. 3 and 4). Between the end flow plates are a plurality, meaning three or more is reasonable, of cell assemblies (Na 0019) that seal with each other to form an airtight (hermetic) seal wherein the electrolyte flows (Na 0031).
Na is silent to the exact configuration of the flow cell end plates but does state that the end plate may have a known configuration (Na 0057). Cho teaches an intermediate manifold structure that can be called a first flow channel end plate as it contains at least a first flow channel and a second flow channel and is present outside of a cell stack (Cho fig. 6). As the structure is present on both side of the cell stack and has the same configuration there is also a third and fourth flow channel on what can be called a second flow channel end plate. As shown in figure 6 as well as figure 3, the electrolyte can enter a first flow channel, travel through the cell stack, and return to exit via the second flow channel (Cho Page 6 paragraph 1 of the provided translation). The same can be said with the other side as an electrolyte can enter the third flow channel, travel through the cell stack, and exit the fourth flow channel.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the intermediate manifold structure and end plate of Cho as the end flow plate and end plate of Na respectively, as doing so means that the shunt current of the flow battery can be reduced (Cho page 11 paragraph 1 of the provided translation) and Na says that any known configuration can be used (Na 0057).
Regarding claim 2, Na in view of Cho teaches claim 1 as described above and Cho further teaches apertures at the end of all of the flow channels (Cho fig. 6). While In figure 6 it is shown that the first flow path, labelled 211b, is on the bottom and the second flow path, labelled 212a, is on the top, it is obvious that the orientation of the end flow plate would not have modified the operation of the flow paths and it is obvious to be able to rearrange and rotate the end flow plate to have the first flow path on top and the second flow path on the bottom, see MPEP 2144.04.VI. As the end flow plates are on opposite sides of the cell stack the first flow path on the first end flow plate is necessarily opposite of the third flow path on the second end flow plate. Further, due to there being four flow paths on each end flow plate, the first and third apertures can be not directly opposite each other along the cell stack and instead flipped along a Y-axis. The same thing can be said regarding the second and fourth flow paths.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Na in view of Cho teaches claim 1 as described above and the cell frames can be called cell assemblies and are hermetically sealed with an adjacent assembly. While it is not explicitly stated that the end flow plate is hermetically sealed to a first assembly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that at least the flow connection point between the end flow plate and a cell assembly is as airtight as the rest of the hermetically sealed cell stack as not sealing it effectively destroys the inventive concept due to a leakage and introduction of air to the flow path.
Regarding claim 4, Na in view of Cho teaches claim 3 as described above and Na further teaches a bipolar plate, outer frame, and an inner frame for each assembly (Na 0020) as well as a membrane (separator) that is surrounded by a diffusion felt, which is known in the art to be an electrode (Na 0044). Na figure 4 also shows that a plurality of these cell frames are hermetically stacked on each other, meaning the first assembly can contain any amount of individual cell frames including a second inner and outer frame. Na also teaches the bipolar plate, inner frame, and electrodes are placed on a seating surface (installation platform) on the outer frame (Na fig. 7 and fig. 4) and can be considered sleeved by it in view of the repeating segments (Na fig. 4). In this case a second end surface of an inner frame can be attached to a second end surface of an adjacent outer frame forming a cavity containing the electrodes. The electrode felts are surrounding the membrane and can be considered as coupled to a first end surface of the first inner frame and a first end surface of the second outer frame. The same can be said of any additional repeating segments and any discrepancies can be reduced to a simple rearrangement of parts without altering the function to optimize flow of the electrolyte through the battery. , see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C.
Regarding claim 9, Na in view of Cho teaches claim 4 as described above and Na allows for any number of cell frames of which a portion can be considered the second assembly. As the second assembly has the same structure as the first assembly there is no patentable significance to mere duplication of parts unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As all parts are enclosed by one or more outer frames, all components can be considered sleeved by outer frames.
Regarding claim 13, Na in view of Cho teaches claim 9 as described above and Na allows for any number of cell frames of which a portion can be considered the third assembly. As the second assembly and first assembly have the same general structure as the third assembly, there is no patentable significance to mere duplication of parts unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As all parts are enclosed by one or more outer frames, all components can be considered sleeved by outer frames.
Regarding claims 14-15 and 17-18, Na in view of Cho teaches claim 13 as described above and further teaches the first end surface of an outer frame has inlet and outlet flow channels and the second end surface of an outer frame has inlet and outlet flow channels (Na fig. 5 and 6). While only one set of inlet and outlet flow channels per frame side is explicitly taught, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As the instant application simply adds more of the same in the form of more apertures with corresponding outer frame inlets, outlets, and flow paths there is no patentable significance. Modified Na further teaches each inlet flow channel is in communication with all other respective inlet channels and each second outlet flow channel is in communication with all other respective outlet channels (Na 0061 0063). Effectively, there is a set of inlets and outlets on both sides of each outer frame that correspond with respective flow channel apertures in their respective arch-like flow channels.
Regarding claim 16, Na in view of Cho teaches claim 15 as described above and further teaches that each inlet and outlet has an annular groove that seals the outer frames together (Na Fig. 7 and 8)
Regarding claim 19, Na in view of Cho teaches claim 13 as described above and further teaches that the cavities have a groove on both sides of the inner and outer frames called a gate (Na, 0016 and 0017, fig. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 20, Na in view of Cho teaches claim 1 as described above and Na uses the cell stack in a flow battery (Na 0056).
Claim(s) 5-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Cho and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20190319274 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Na in view of Cho teaches claim 4 as described above and further teaches all of the outer frames have at least an inlet and an outlet which are in communication with all other respective inlets and outlets via electrolyte flow paths (Na 0061 and 0064). The flow channel apertures are also in a position corresponding with the respective inlets and outlets as shown by the holes of the outer plate of Na in each corner and the apertures in each corner of the end flow plate as shown in Cho (Na fig. 5, Cho fig. 6). While only one set of inlets and outlets is explicitly taught, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As the instant application simply adds more of the same in the form of more apertures with corresponding outer frame inlets, outlets, and flow paths there is no patentable significance.
Na in view of Cho is silent to a plurality of first-electrolyte blocking apertures on the second side of the first outer frame. The purpose of the electrolyte-blocking apertures is to allow either a positive or negative electrolyte to enter a cavity on one side of the separator without mixing with the other electrolyte present in the cavity on the opposite side of the separator and causing a short to occur. While the same structure is not explicitly present, Na does a similar process by staggering outlet and inlet gates connected to the flow channels on the outer frame (Na fig. 6, 0053, 0055). Someone with ordinary skill in the art might want to find different ways to prevent an electrolyte from flowing to an unwanted area and causing issues such as a shortage and would therefore look toward other art.
PNG
media_image2.png
160
329
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liu teaches a sealing structure for a flow battery stack that has a flow channel hole which is surrounded by an annular convex structure with a sealing wire (Liu 0073, fig. 7). Further, the use of this structure and the sealing wire is to prevent the flow battery stack electrolyte from leaking through the wall and causing a short circuit of the cells (Liu 0076). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the flow battery stack of modified Na and, instead of having the staggered inlet and outlet gates, use the gasket of Liu, which can be described as an electrolyte blocking aperture, to control the flow of positive and negative electrolyte to alternatively “skip” every other cavity and prevent a shortage of the cell as a result of mixing positive and negative electrolytes. This is a simple substitution for one way of blocking electrolyte from flowing for another with predictable results.
With this combination forming modified Na, the first-electrolyte blocking apertures, both inlet and outlet, would be on the second end surface of the first outer frame so that one of either the positive or negative electrolyte can skip that cavity. Further, the second outer frame has a plurality of inlets and outlets that are in communication with the first electrolyte blocking aperture and they are in a position corresponding with the apertures in each corner of the end flow plate as shown in Cho (Na fig. 5, Cho fig. 6). While only one set of inlets and outlets is explicitly taught, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As the instant application simply adds more of the same in the form of more apertures with corresponding outer frame inlets, outlets, and flow paths there is no patentable significance. Effectively, there is a set of inlets and outlets on both sides of each outer frame that correspond with respective flow channel apertures in their respective arch-like flow channels.
Regarding claim 6, Na in view of Cho and Liu teaches claim 5 as described above and further teaches all of the inlets and outlets have what can be called an annular groove as one side of each outer frame is convex and the other is concave which forms a seal when multiple frames are pressed together (Na, 0043, fig. 7 and 8). The electrolyte-blocking apertures also have an annular convex structure that presses against a sealing wire to form a sealing groove (Liu, 0073).
Regarding claim 7, Na in view of Cho and Liu teaches claim 5 as described above and further teaches the first end surface of first outer frame has first flow channels and the second end surface of the first outer frame has second inlet flow channels and second outlet flow channels (Na fig. 5 and 6). While only one set of inlet flow channels and outlet flow channels is explicitly taught, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As the instant application simply adds more of the same in the form of more apertures with corresponding outer frame inlets, outlets, and flow paths there is no patentable significance. Modified Na further teaches each second inlet flow channel is in communication with one first inlet and one first cavity (opening portion); and each second outlet flow channel is in communication with one first outlet and one first cavity (Na 0031).
Regarding claim 8, Na in view of Cho and Liu teaches claim 5 as described above which teaches there is a set of inlets and outlets on both sides of each outer frame, including a second outer frame, that correspond with respective flow channel apertures in their respective arch-like flow channels. Further, all inlets and outlets are in communication with all other inlets and outlets resulting from the same aperture respectively (Na 0061, 0063). Further there is a cavity formed by the outer frames that the electrolyte enters (Na 0031).
Regarding claim 10, Na in view of Cho teaches claim 9 as described above and further teaches all of the outer frames have at least an inlet and an outlet which are in communication with all other respective inlets and outlets via electrolyte flow paths (Na 0061 and 0064). The flow channel apertures are also in a position corresponding with the respective inlets and outlets as shown by the holes of the outer plate of Na in each corner and the apertures in each corner of the end flow plate as shown in Cho (Na fig. 5, Cho fig. 6). While only one set of inlets and outlets is explicitly taught, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As the instant application simply adds more of the same in the form of more apertures with corresponding outer frame inlets, outlets, and flow paths there is no patentable significance.
Na in view of Cho is silent to a plurality of first-electrolyte blocking apertures on the second side of the first outer frame. The purpose of the electrolyte-blocking apertures is to allow either a positive or negative electrolyte to enter a cavity on one side of the separator without mixing with the other electrolyte present in the cavity on the opposite side of the separator and causing a short to occur. While the same structure is not explicitly present, Na does a similar process by staggering outlet and inlet gates connected to the flow channels on the outer frame (Na fig. 6, 0053, 0055). Someone with ordinary skill in the art might want to find different ways to prevent an electrolyte from flowing to an unwanted area and causing issues such as a shortage and would therefore look toward other art.
PNG
media_image2.png
160
329
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liu teaches a sealing structure for a flow battery stack that has a flow channel hole which is surrounded by an annular convex structure with a sealing wire (Liu 0073, fig. 7). Further, the use of this structure and the sealing wire is to prevent the flow battery stack electrolyte from leaking through the wall and causing a short circuit of the cells (Liu 0076). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the flow battery stack of modified Na and, instead of having the staggered inlet and outlet gates, use the gasket of Liu, which can be described as an electrolyte blocking aperture, to control the flow of positive and negative electrolyte to alternatively “skip” every other cavity and prevent a shortage of the cell as a result of mixing positive and negative electrolytes. This is a simple substitution for one way of blocking electrolyte from flowing for another with predictable results.
With this combination forming modified Na, electrolyte blocking apertures, both inlet and outlet, would be on the outer frame so that one of either the positive or negative electrolyte can skip that cavity. Further, the outer frame has a plurality of inlets and outlets that are in communication with the electrolyte blocking aperture and they are in a position corresponding with the apertures in each corner of the end flow plate as shown in Cho (Na fig. 5, Cho fig. 6). While only one set of inlets and outlets is explicitly taught, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As the instant application simply adds more of the same in the form of more apertures with corresponding outer frame inlets, outlets, and flow paths there is no patentable significance. Effectively, there is a set of inlets and outlets on both sides of each outer frame that correspond with respective flow channel apertures in their respective arch-like flow channels.
Regarding claim 11, Na in view of Cho and Liu teaches claim 10 as described above and further teaches all of the inlets and outlets have what can be called an annular groove as one side of each outer frame is convex and the other is concave which forms a seal when multiple frames are pressed together (Na, 0043, fig. 7 and 8). The electrolyte-blocking apertures also have an annular convex structure that presses against a sealing wire to form a sealing groove (Liu, 0073).
Regarding claim 12, Na in view of Cho and Liu teaches claim 11 as described above and further teaches the first end surface of an outer frame has inlet and outlet flow channels and the second end surface of an outer frame has inlet and outlet flow channels (Na fig. 5 and 6). While only one set of inlet and outlet flow channels per frame side is explicitly taught, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As the instant application simply adds more of the same in the form of more apertures with corresponding outer frame inlets, outlets, and flow paths there is no patentable significance. Modified Na further teaches each inlet flow channel is in communication with all other respective inlet channels and each second outlet flow channel is in communication with all other respective outlet channels (Na 0061 0063).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743