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 .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted September 1, 2023, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saraidaridis et al. (US 2020/0328435 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Saraidaridis et al. disclose a redox flow battery (20), comprising: a single cell including an anode and cathode, or first and second electrodes (42, 44), wherein the anode and the cathode (42, 44) are positioned on opposite sides of the single cell (paragraphs 0040-0041, 0045); a single electrolyte reservoir (24) connected to the single cell by at least one inlet tube, called a feed line (28), and at least one outlet tube, called return line (40), such that an electrolyte (22) is configured to flow from the single electrolyte reservoir (24) through the at least one inlet tube (28) into the single cell and then back to the single electrolyte reservoir (24) through the at least one outlet tube (40) (paragraphs 0044, 0047); and a porous separator element, called an electrolyte separator layer (46), positioned directly adjacent to an interior side of the cathode (42, 44) within the single cell; wherein the porous separator element (46) includes at least one porous silicon wafer (paragraphs 0045-0046).
With regard to Claim 9, Saraidaridis et al. disclose a redox flow battery (20), comprising: a single cell including an anode and cathode, or first and second electrodes (42, 44), wherein the anode and the cathode (42, 44) are positioned on opposite sides of the single cell (paragraphs 0040-0041, 0045); a single electrolyte reservoir (24) connected to the single cell by at least one inlet tube, called a feed line (28), and at least one outlet tube, called return line (40), such that an electrolyte (22) is configured to flow from the single electrolyte reservoir (24) through the at least one inlet tube (28) into the single cell and then back to the single electrolyte reservoir (24) through the at least one outlet tube (40) (paragraphs 0044, 0047); and a porous separator element, called an electrolyte separator layer (46), positioned directly adjacent to an interior side of the cathode (42, 44) within the single cell (paragraphs 0045-0046). Saraidaridis et al. disclose wherein the electrolyte separator layer (46) can be, but is not limited to, an ionic-exchange membrane, a micro-porous polymer membrane or an electrically insulating microporous matrix of a material, such as silicon carbide (SiC), that prevents the fluid electrolytes from freely and rapidly mixing but permits selected ions to pass through to complete the redox reactions while electrically isolating the electrodes (paragraph 0046), thereby meeting the claimed limitation of the single cell not including an ion-selective membrane between the anode and the cathode.
With regard to Claim 14, Saraidaridis et al. disclose in Figure 1, wherein a direction of flow of electrolyte (22) within the single cell is substantially orthogonal to a central axis between the anode and the cathode (42, 44).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 4-7, 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saraidaridis et al. (US 2020/0328435 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 9 and 14 above.
With regard to Claim 4, Saraidaridis et al. disclose the redox flow battery in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein each of a plurality of pores of the at least one porous silicon wafer has a depth to cross-section aspect ratio less or equal to 50:1. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the plurality of pores of the at least one porous silicon wafer has a depth to cross-section aspect ratio less or equal to 50:1, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 5, Saraidaridis et al. disclose the redox flow battery in paragraph 7 above, including wherein the electrolyte separator layer (46) can be, but is not limited to, an ionic-exchange membrane, a micro-porous polymer membrane or an electrically insulating microporous matrix of a material, such as silicon carbide (SiC), that prevents the fluid electrolytes from freely and rapidly mixing but permits selected ions to pass through to complete the redox reactions while electrically isolating the electrodes (paragraph 0046), thereby meeting the claimed limitation of the single cell not including an ion-selective membrane between the anode and the cathode.
With regard to Claim 6, Saraidaridis et al. disclose the redox flow battery in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the redox flow battery shares the anode and/or the cathode with at least one other redox flow battery in a redox flow battery stack. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the redox flow battery to share the anode and/or the cathode with at least one other redox flow battery in a redox flow battery stack, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04(VI).
With regard to Claim 7, Saraidaridis et al. disclose the redox flow battery in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the anode is thicker than the cathode. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the anode to be thicker than the cathode since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 12, Saraidaridis et al. disclose the redox flow battery in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein each of a plurality of pores of the at least one porous silicon wafer has a depth to cross-section aspect ratio less or equal to 50:1. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the plurality of pores of the at least one porous silicon wafer has a depth to cross-section aspect ratio less or equal to 50:1, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 13, Saraidaridis et al. disclose the redox flow battery in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the redox flow battery shares the anode and/or the cathode with at least one other redox flow battery in a redox flow battery stack. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the redox flow battery to share the anode and/or the cathode with at least one other redox flow battery in a redox flow battery stack, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04(VI).
With regard to Claim 16, Saraidaridis et al. disclose the redox flow battery in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein each of a plurality of pores of the porous separator element are substantially cylindrical through holes. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the plurality of pores of the porous separator element to be substantially cylindrical through holes, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
12. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saraidaridis et al. (US 2020/0328435 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 9 and 14 above, and in further view of Gleason et al. (US 2016/0156066 A1).
With regard to Claim 8, Saraidaridis et al. disclose the redox flow battery in paragraph 7 above, wherein the electrolyte can be based on vanadium or iron (paragraph 0042), but do not specifically disclose wherein the electrolyte is a zinc-bromide electrolyte, an iron chloride electrolyte, an iron-chromium electrolyte, a zinc-nickel electrolyte, a zinc-iodide electrolyte, or a zinc-iron electrolyte.
Gleason et al. disclose an electroactive structure (102), comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode and comprising an suitable electroactive material for use in any type of electrochemical cell (paragraphs 0130-0132), and a polymer layer (104), suitable for use as an electrolyte in electrochemical cells, proximate the electroactive structure (102). Gleason et al. disclose wherein the electrolyte is selected from the group consisting of an iron-ligand electrolyte, an iron-chloride electrolyte, an iron-chromium electrolyte, a vanadium-based electrolyte, a sulfuric acid-based electrolyte, a hydrochloric acid electrolyte, a zinc-bromide electrolyte, a zinc-iodide electrolyte, a zinc-cerium electrolyte, a zinc-nickel electrolyte, and a zinc-iron electrolyte, since Gleason et al. disclose non-limiting examples of types of electrochemical cells including a nickel-cadmium electrochemical cell, a nickel-zinc electrochemical cell, a nickel-metal hydride electrochemical cell, a zinc-air cell, a silver-zinc cell, and a lithium-sulfur cell. Examples of suitable electroactive materials for the electroactive structure included, but are not limited to lithium metal. Sulfur, nickel, cadmium, zinc, silver, platinum and manganese dioxide (paragraph 0132). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the redox flow battery of Saraidaridis et al., to include an electrolyte selected from the group consisting of a zinc-bromide electrolyte, an iron chloride electrolyte, an iron-chromium electrolyte, a zinc-nickel electrolyte, a zinc-iodide electrolyte, or a zinc-iron electrolyte, because Gleason et al. teach certain advantages associated with ion transport.
With regard to Claim 15, Saraidaridis et al. disclose the redox flow battery in paragraph 7 above, wherein the electrolyte can be based on vanadium or iron (paragraph 0042), but do not specifically disclose wherein the electrolyte is a zinc-bromide electrolyte, an iron chloride electrolyte, an iron-chromium electrolyte, a zinc-nickel electrolyte, a zinc-iodide electrolyte, or a zinc-iron electrolyte.
Gleason et al. disclose an electroactive structure (102), comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode and comprising an suitable electroactive material for use in any type of electrochemical cell (paragraphs 0130-0132), and a polymer layer (104), suitable for use as an electrolyte in electrochemical cells, proximate the electroactive structure (102). Gleason et al. disclose wherein the electrolyte is selected from the group consisting of an iron-ligand electrolyte, an iron-chloride electrolyte, an iron-chromium electrolyte, a vanadium-based electrolyte, a sulfuric acid-based electrolyte, a hydrochloric acid electrolyte, a zinc-bromide electrolyte, a zinc-iodide electrolyte, a zinc-cerium electrolyte, a zinc-nickel electrolyte, and a zinc-iron electrolyte, since Gleason et al. disclose non-limiting examples of types of electrochemical cells including a nickel-cadmium electrochemical cell, a nickel-zinc electrochemical cell, a nickel-metal hydride electrochemical cell, a zinc-air cell, a silver-zinc cell, and a lithium-sulfur cell. Examples of suitable electroactive materials for the electroactive structure included, but are not limited to lithium metal. Sulfur, nickel, cadmium, zinc, silver, platinum and manganese dioxide (paragraph 0132). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the redox flow battery of Saraidaridis et al., to include an electrolyte selected from the group consisting of a zinc-bromide electrolyte, an iron chloride electrolyte, an iron-chromium electrolyte, a zinc-nickel electrolyte, a zinc-iodide electrolyte, or a zinc-iron electrolyte, because Gleason et al. teach certain advantages associated with ion transport.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 2-3 and 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regard to Claims 2-3, the closest prior art, Saraidaridis et al. (US 2020/0328435 A1), do not teach or fairly suggest wherein a surface of a plurality of pores of the at least one porous silicon wafer is coated with at least one metal silicide; and, wherein the at least one metal silicide includes a titanium silicide, a tungsten silicide, a nickel silicide, a cobalt silicide, a platinum silicide, and/or a palladium silicide.
With regard to Claims 10-11, the closest prior art, Saraidaridis et al. (US 2020/0328435 A1), do not teach or fairly suggest wherein a surface of a plurality of pores of the porous separator element is coated with at least one metal silicide; and, wherein the at least one metal silicide includes a titanium silicide, a tungsten silicide, a nickel silicide, a cobalt silicide, a platinum silicide, and/or a palladium silicide.
15. Claims 17-20 are allowed.
16. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art, Saraidaridis et al. (US 2020/0328435 A1), teach a redox flow battery, comprising: a single cell including an anode and cathode, wherein the anode and the cathode are positioned on opposite sides of the single cell; a single electrolyte reservoir connected to the single cell by at least one inlet tube and at least one outlet tube, such that an electrolyte is configured to flow from the single electrolyte reservoir through the at least one inlet tube into the single cell and then back to the single electrolyte reservoir through the at least one outlet tube; and a porous separator element positioned directly adjacent to an interior side of the cathode within the single cell. The closest prior art do not teach, fairly suggest or render obvious wherein a surface of a plurality of pores of the porous separator element is coated with at least one metal silicide; and wherein each of the plurality of pores of the porous separator element has a depth to cross section aspect ratio less or equal to 50:1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST.
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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights