DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 21-30 are cancelled.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 30 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the second “liquid catholyte” appears to be a typo for liquid anolyte. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-6 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 claim 3, claim 3 depends on claim 2. Claim 2 is inclusive of multiple supporting electrolytes. It is unclear which supporting electrolyte is being referred to in claim 3. Claims 4-6 depend on claim 3.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amstutz et al. (US 2015/0017494).
Regarding claim 1, Amstutz discloses a redox flow battery for hydrogen generation (title) and water electrolysis [0011] (= a spatially decoupled redox flow water electrolyzer), comprising:
Hydrogen is produced in a cathodic reservoir section that includes a negatively polarized electrode as the cathode (3) including a storage tank (9) and tubing (10) whereby a catholyte/electrolyte (8) is circulated (abstract, [0003], [0011], [0015]) (Figure 1) (= a hydrogen-producing catholyte section comprising a catholyte tank, having a cathode, and a hydrogen generation compartment, where the catholyte tank and the hydrogen generation compartment are fluidly connected to one another by a fluid pathway, so as to facilitate the circulation of a liquid catholyte from the catholyte tank to the hydrogen generation compartment and back to the catholyte tank);
Oxygen is produced in the anodic reservoir section including an anolyte/electrolyte (8) and an anode (3) with a storage tank (9) and tubing (10) present to circulate the anolyte [0011], [0015]-[0016] (= an oxygen-producing anolyte section comprising an anolyte tank, having an anode, and an oxygen producing compartment, where the anolyte tank and the oxygen producing compartment are fluidly connected to one another by a fluid pathway, so as to facilitate the circulating of a liquid anolyte from the anolyte tank to the oxygen producing compartment and back to the anolyte tank);
PNG
media_image1.png
730
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of US 2015/0017494.
Connection to an external power source (4) or an electrical load (5) is shown at sites (6) connecting to the current collectors upon which the felt electrodes (3) are pressed [0031] (= a current collector attached to the catholyte and anolyte tanks), wherein:
Mo-based catalyst as a H2 generation catalyst [0044] when brought into contact with a cathodic redox mediator in a reduced state (see equation 7; redox couple with the electron donor) (= the hydrogen generation compartment is configured to house a catalyst capable of catalyzing hydrogen production when brought into contact with a cathodic redox mediator when the cathodic redox mediator is in a reduced state);
PNG
media_image2.png
40
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
for water oxidation IrO2 nanoparticles are used for their well-known catalytic properties when brought into contact with an anodic redox mediator when the mediator is in an oxidized state [0047] (see equation 7 below, Ce(IV) as an electron acceptor) (= the oxygen generation compartment is configured to house a catalyst capable of catalysing oxygen production when brought into contact with an anodic redox mediator when the anodic redox mediator is in an oxidized state).
PNG
media_image3.png
36
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the claimed “an anion-exchange membrane disposed between the catholyte and anolyte tanks that allows anions to move from the catholyte tank to the anolyte tank”, Amstutz discloses an ionic membrane (2) [0031]. Amstutz does not disclose the ionic membrane as an anion-exchange member, however, Amstutz discloses that anion-exchange membranes are used as an ion-selective membrane for energy storage applications [0035]. Amstutz discloses that the choice of membrane includes considerations including ion conductivity, ion selectivity and chemical stability [0035]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an ion selective membrane such as an anion-exchange membrane based on the various parameters of the system including for example the electrolyte [0035], [0052].
Regarding claim 2, Amstutz discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises:
Mo-based catalyst [0044], [0058] in the supporting electrolyte (e.g. sulfuric acid) [0040] (= a liquid catholyte that comprises a supporting electrolyte and a cathodic redox mediator capable of producing hydrogen; and
a catalyst capable of catalysing hydrogen production when brought into contact with a cathodic redox mediator when the cathodic redox mediator is in a reduced state, where the catalyst is housed in the hydrogen generation compartment); and
the oxygen-producing anolyte section further comprises:
the electrolyte comprises Ce(III)/Ce(II) in methanesulfonic acid [0039]-[0040] in a sulfuric acid supporting electrolyte [0060] (= a liquid anolyte that comprises a supporting electrolyte and an anodic redox mediator capable of producing oxygen); and
a catalyst capable of catalysing oxygen production when brought into contact with an anodic redox mediator when the anodic redox mediator is in an oxidised state, where the catalyst is housed in the oxygen generation compartment).
Regarding claim 3, Amstutz discloses wherein the supporting electrolyte (anolyte and catholyte) comprises a solvent and one or more compounds or salts that provide the ions including the catalyst described above in the 1 M sulfuric acid supporting electrolyte [0040], [0058], [0060].
Regarding claim 5, Amstutz discloses the addition of water by replenishment [0035] and suggests a neutral solution with water [0047].
Regarding claim 6, Amstutz discloses 1 M sulfuric acid supporting electrolyte [0040].
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Amstutz discloses 0.5 – 3 M VCl3 and 0.5 – 2 M Ce2(SO4)2 or CE(NO3)6(NH4)2 [0040] which overlap with the claimed ranges therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claims 11-12, Amstutz discloses Mo (= transition metal) and IrO2 [0044], [0047].
Regarding claim 14, while Amstutz does not explicity disclose the phrase “wherein the electrolyzer is able to generate oxygen and/or hydrogen with a purity of greater than or equal to 99.9%” this phrase is directed towards the resulting product. There is nothing structurally different from the apparatus of Amstutz compared to the claimed electrolyzer. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily produce a device that is capable of producing high purity products.
Regarding claim 15, Amstutz discloses 3 mg IrO2 to 3 mg MoS2 or Mo2C [0058]-[0059] which falls within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amstutz et al. (US 2015/0017494) in view of Li et al. (“A Stable Vanadium Redox-Flow Battery with High Energy Density for Large-Scale Energy Storage” Advanced Energy Materials, 2011, 1, 394-400).
Regarding claim 4, Amstutz discloses a supporting electrolyte comprising H2SO4 [0040]. Amstutz states “supporting electrolyte is often an acid, and, in most publications, is H2SO4 with the citation of Li et al. Amstutz does not disclose the ions as claimed.
In the same field of redox flow batteries, Li (which is cited by Amstutz) discloses wherein a supporting electrolyte may comprise chloride ions as an alternative to sulfate ions (page 395, 2.1, left column into right column).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising chloride ions in a supporting electrolyte because Li discloses that chloride ions are an alternative ion supply for a supporting electrolyte. It would have been obvious to simply substitute one known ion supply for another to produce the same or similar predictable result.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amstutz et al. (US 2015/0017494) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2020/204830).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Amstutz fails to disclose wherein the cathodic redox mediator is selected from the claimed options.
In the same or similar field of a redox flow battery including a catholyte and anolyte tanks (abstract), Wang discloses wherein the supporting electrolyte may further comprise a redox mediator including for example viologen, DHPS, iron triethanolamine, phenazine, (as applied to claim 7) and ferrocene (as applied to claim 9), etc. (page 8 lines 5-15 and page 14 lines 4-6 and 17-28). Wang discloses that power is released in the electrochemical cell when the redox mediators in the catholyte and anolyte are circulated through their respective storage tanks and can be regenerated via reversible chemical reduction and oxidation of said materials. Wang further discloses that as a result the energy density of this system may be a few times higher than that of the state of the art aqueous flow system batteries and also while reducing the cost (page 8 lines 20-27).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising redox mediators as claimed because in the same field of endeavor Wang discloses that redox mediators such as viologen, DHPS, iron triethanolamine, phenazine and ferrocene provide workable redox mediators that increase energy density at a reduced cost.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amstutz et al. (US 2015/0017494) in view of Fongen (US 5,688,387).
Regarding claim 13, Amstutz fails to disclose wherein the electrolyzer is configured to introduce the liquid catholyte to the hydrogen generation compartment as a spray.
Fongen discloses an electrochemical system whereby an electrolyte is sprayed (abstract) to the electrodes in the chambers through nozzles (11, 12) (Col. 2 lines 39-44).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising an electrolyzer configured to introduce liquid as a spray because it is known in the same field of endeavor to introduce anolyte and catholyte into a chamber using a spray technique.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795