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 Status
Claims 14-21, 24, and 26 have been amended. Claims 14-26 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (U.S. 20220399561) in view of Jouhara et al. (Raising the redox potential in carboxyphenolate-based positive organic materials via cation substitution).
With respect to claims 14-21, Casey discloses a battery (700 – iron redox flow battery (IFB) with a bipolar architecture (Fig. 7) which comprises two terminal current collectors (306 and 702 – first and third current collectors) between which a stack of n electrochemical cells (212 and 214 - first and second cell stack) is disposed, n being an integer at least equal to 2 (Fig. 7), wherein:
- each electrochemical cell (212, 214) comprises a positive electrode (28) (Fig. 1 and 7), a negative electrode (26) and an electrolytic constituent (24 – separators) disposed between the positive electrode (28) and the negative electrode (26) (Fig. 1 and 7, [0049] - batteries 212 and 214 is the same as cells 18 and 19);
- the n (2) electrochemical cells (212 and 214) are separated from each other by (n-1) bipolar current collectors (316 – second current collector) (Fig. 7).
Casey does not disclose that both the positive electrode and the negative electrode of each electrochemical cell comprise, as an active material, a same organic biredox compound comprising, at least one group capable of capturing electrons and belonging to a first redox pair, and at least one group capable of donating electrons and belonging to a second redox pair.
Jouhara discloses a battery ([abstract]) and teaches the battery has a same active material for use within both a positive and negative electrode (pg. 2, Col 1, [0002]) and that the active material is an organic biredox compound (dilithium (2,5-dilithium-oxy)-terephthalate) comprising at least one group capable of capturing electrons (conjugated carbonyl group) (Fig. 1, thus reading on claim 15 and 16) and at least one group capable of donating electrons (enol group) (Fig. 1, thus reading on claim 15 and 16) (pg. 2, Col 1, [0002]). Takashi further teaches that this compound is desirable as it is a promising full-function electrode and also entirely derived from renewable resources (pg. 2, Col. 1, [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to use the benzoquinone as taught by Takahashi in the battery disclosed by Casey as his compound may be doped to form a redox pair for exhibiting conductivity.
With respect to claims 17-21, the compound dilithium (2,5-dilithium-oxy)-terephthalate contains a beznoquinone compound in the enolate (Fig. 1; pg. 2, col. 2, [0001]) form substituted by at least on carboxylate group capable of capturing electrons (Fig. 1; pg. 2, col. 1, [0002]) with the form
PNG
media_image1.png
495
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, thus reading on formula (VIII) in claim 21.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey in view of Jouhara as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (U.S. 20140184162).
With respect to claim 22, Casey discloses the negative electrodes and the positive electrodes but does not disclose the electrodes further comprise electronic conductive additives.
Takahashi discloses a redox flow battery ([0086]) comprising positive and negative electrodes ([0085]) and teaches the electrodes comprise conductive additives ([0330]; [0364]). Takahashi further teaches the conductive additives enable the electrodes to have a higher conductivity ([0352]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the conductive additives taught by Takahashi in the electrodes disclosed by modified Casey in order to increase the conductivity of the electrodes.
Claim(s) 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey in view of Jouhara as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Benicewicz et al. (U.S. 20200091539).
With respect to claims 23-24, modified Casey discloses a battery with electrodes for a redox reaction (see above rejection of claim 14), but does not disclose gelled electrodes.
Benicewicz discloses a redox flow battery ([abstract]) and teaches the electrodes are gelling polymer membranes containing liquid electrolytes ([0030]) and that he active material (redox pair) is present in the electrolyte ([0076]), thus reading on claim 24). Benicewicz further teaches that these electrodes exhibit low permeability to active redox species of the battery in conjunction with high ionic conductivity and that can operate under high current loads while also being highly stable and durable in the challenging environment of the redox flow battery ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to employ the gelled electrodes taught by Benicewicz in the redox flow battery disclosed by modified Casey as these electrodes exhibit low permeability to active redox species of the battery in conjunction with high ionic conductivity and that can operate under high current loads while also being highly stable and durable in the challenging environment of the redox flow battery.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey in view of Jouhara as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Abusleme et al. (U.S. 20140315080).
With respect to claims 25-26, Casey discloses a separator comprising electrolyte housed within a membrane ([0027]), but does not disclose the membrane is a gelled polymer membrane, or that the gelled polymer membrane comprises an organic portion comprising at least one fluorinated polymer (F) comprising at least one repeating unit resulting from the polymerization of a fluorinated monomer and at least one repeating unit resulting from the polymerization of a monomer comprising at least one hydroxyl group and comprising an inorganic portion formed, entirely or partly, of one or more oxide(s) of at least one element M selected from among Si, Ti and Zr and combinations thereof.
Abusleme discloses polymer electrolyte separator ([abstract]) and teaches a gel polymer electrolyte separator (membrane) ([abstract], [0003], [0007]) and that the polymer electrolyte separator comprises a fluoropolymer comprising at least one hydroxyl group and a metal selected from Si, Ti, and Zr ([abstract]). Abusleme further teaches that this separator has increased electrolyte/liquid plasticizer retention ability and an improved ionic conductibility ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to use the polymer electrolyte separator taught by Abusleme in the electrolyte disclosed by modified Casey as this separator has increased electrolyte/liquid plasticizer retention ability and an improved ionic conductibility.
The limitations “resulting from the polymerization of a fluorinated monomer and at least one repeating unit resulting from the polymerization of a monomer…” is an example of a product by process limitation. Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the 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). As the resultant separator has the same structure as that claimed in the instant application, the method of forming the separator is not patentable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9 of response, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the drawing objections and claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection (relying upon Damlencourt and Takahashi) of claim 14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference (Damlencourt and Takahashi) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, and now rely on new prior art of Casey in view of Jouhara. All arguments regarding dependent claims 15-26 were premised around the assertion that the subsequent relied upon pieces of prior art do not cure the deficiencies of Damlencourt and Takahashi.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights