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 .
Claims 1-7 are pending in the application
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the quality of the drawings are too poor to be able to adequately read the reference numbers. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation “then oxidizing it to produce a second vanadium ion solution” in line 8 which is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “it” is in reference to, whether that be the first vanadium ion solution, the first cathode electrolyte tank, or the cathode.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “reducing it to produce a third vanadium ion solution” in line 10 which is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “it” is in reference to, whether that be the first vanadium ion solution, the first anode electrolyte tank, or the anode.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “reduce it to a fourth vanadium ion solution” in line 13 which is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “it” is in reference to, whether that be the second vanadium ion solution, the cathode, or the reducing agent.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “flowing the fourth vanadium ion solution into a second cathode electrolyte tank and a second anode electrolyte tank to which a second stack including a cathode, a separator, and an anode are connected and reusing it” in lines 2-4. The term “reusing” is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “reusing” is in reference to doing, whether that be flowing the vanadium ion solution, oxidizing the fourth vanadium ion solution, reducing the fourth vanadium ion solution, or some combination of the listed uses. The term “it” is also is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “it” is in reference to, whether that be the fourth vanadium ion solution, the second cathode electrolyte tank, the second anode electrolyte tank, the second stack, the cathode, the separator, or the anode.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the reducing step in step e)" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the reducing step in step e)” is in reference to a reuse of a reducing agent from claim 1 step d) or a separate reducing step altogether.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the molar ratio" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There has not been a molar ratio positively claimed and it is unclear what this is in reference to.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "pentavalent vanadium ions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There have not been any pentavalent vanadium ions positively claimed and it is unclear what this is in reference to.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the reduction of the step (d)" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the reduction” is in reference to the result of “reacting the second vanadium ion solution generated at the cathode with a reducing agent to reduce it” in step d) of claim 1 or if there is separate reduction taking place.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the concentration" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There has not been a concentration positively claimed and it is unclear what this is in reference to.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the pentavalent vanadium ions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There have not been any pentavalent vanadium ions positively claimed and it is unclear what this is in reference to.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the reduction reaction" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the reduction reaction” is in reference to the result of “reacting the second vanadium ion solution generated at the cathode with a reducing agent to reduce it” in step d) of claim 1 or if there is separate reduction taking place.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inert gas" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There has not been an inert gas positively claimed in claim 5 and it is unclear what this is in reference to.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Keshavarz (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0050570).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Keshavarz teaches method for preparing an electrolyte for a vanadium redox flow battery (abstract). The method involves multiple steps, including step a); preparing a first vanadium ion solution (vanadium (IV) solution, fig. 3a ref. #304) ([0038], [0051], fig. 3A ref #200, #304, and fig. 2 ref. #200), followed by step b); flowing the first vanadium ion solution into a first cathode electrolyte tank and a first anode electrolyte tank (holding tanks) ([0030], [0052], and fig. 1 ref. #122 and #124) to which a first stack containing a cathode, a separator, and an anode (membrane and half cells) is connected ([0032], fig. 1 ref. #118 and #120). Next, step c); flowing the first vanadium ion solution (vanadium (IV) solution) from the first cathode electrolyte tank to the cathode and then oxidizing it to produce a second vanadium ion solution (vanadium (IV) and (V) solution, fig. 3A ref. #308) (fig. 3 ref. #306 and [0030]), and flowing the first vanadium ion solution (vanadium (IV) solution) from the first anode electrolyte tank to the anode and then reducing it to produce a third vanadium ion solution (vanadium (III) and (IV) solution, fig. 3A ref. #310) (fig. 3 ref. #306 and [0030]). Both electrochemical redox reactions are accomplished using the electrochemical cell as depicted in figure 1 ([0027] and [0052]). In the following step d), the second vanadium ion solution (vanadium (IV) and (V) solution) generated at the cathode is reacted with a reducing agent to reduce it to a fourth vanadium ion solution (vanadium (IV) solution, fig. 3A ref. #304) ([0054], fig. 3A and fig. 2, ref. #200, ). A next step e) is when a fourth vanadium ion solution (vanadium (IV) solution) is flowed into a second cathode electrolyte tank and a second anode electrolyte tank (holding tanks) ([0030], [0052], and fig. 1 ref. #122 and #124) to which a second stack including a cathode, a separator, and an anode (membrane and half cells) is connected and reusing it ([0032], fig. 1 ref. #118 and #120, and fig. 3 ref. #306).
Regarding claim 4, Keshavarz also teaches that the reducing agent of step d) is one or more selected from the group consisting of oxalic acid, ethanol ([0043]), methanol, and formic acid ([0041]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshavarz (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0050570) in view of Cao (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 106340657). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-106340657-A.
Keshavarz is relied upon as described above.
Keshavarz does not teach the reducing agent used to reduce the second vanadium ion solution is inputted in an amount corresponding to the molar ratio thereof by measuring the concentration of pentavalent vanadium ions in the second vanadium ion solution.
Cao teaches a method for reusing (recycling) vanadium ion solution (electrolyte) to be used in a battery by chemical reduction (abstract). Cao also teaches the reducing agent used to reduce the vanadium ion solution being inputted in an amount corresponding to the molar ratio thereof by measuring the concentration of pentavalent vanadium ions in the second vanadium ion solution ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the measurement of the pentavalent vanadium ions in the vanadium ion solution of Keshavarz to determine the amount of reducing agent to use as taught by Cao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this technique as it allows for the appropriate amount of reducing agent to be used to reduce all of the pentavalent vanadium ions ([0019]), and any amount of pentavalent vanadium ions remaining would decrease the amount of the desired vanadium ion solution can be made in the electrochemical reduction step.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshavarz (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0050570) in view of Nakajima (United States Patent No. 5,587,132).
Keshavarz is relied upon as described above.
Keshavarz also teaches the reduction of the step (d) is performed until the concentration of the pentavalent vanadium ions in the second vanadium ion solution is as low as desired ([0050]).
Keshavarz does not explicitly teach the reduction of the step (d) is performed until the concentration of the pentavalent vanadium ions in the second vanadium ion solution (vanadium (IV) and (V) solution) is 0.01 M or less.
Nakajima teaches a method for producing an electrolytic solution containing vanadium (abstract). The method of Nakajima includes making a vanadium ion solution of a pentavalent vanadium species (V2O5 solution, a vanadium (V) solution) followed by the addition of oxalic acid as a reducing agent (page 5, column 2, lines 45-53). The concentration of pentavalent vanadium ions after the reduction is 0 M (page 5, column 8, Table 2), which lies within the claimed range of 0.01 M or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to perform the chemical reduction on the pentavalent vanadium ions in the second vanadium ion solution of Keshavarz (vanadium (IV) and (V) solution, fig 3A. ref. #308, and #200) until the concentration is 0 M as taught by Nakajima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the pentavalent ions to this level as any tetravalent and trivalent vanadium ions can be used in the process of manufacturing the electrolyte, though pentavalent vanadium ions cannot ([0051]), and any amount of pentavalent vanadium ions remaining would decrease the amount of the desired vanadium ion solution can be made in the electrochemical reduction step.
Claims 6-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshavarz (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0050570) in view of Utsumi (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2013/054921). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2013054921-A1
Keshavarz is relied upon as described above.
Keshavarz does not teach the reduction reaction of the step (d) further comprises a step of being performed in the presence of an inert gas, nor the inert gas being one or more selected from the group consisting of nitrogen, argon, and helium.
Utsumi teaches a method for manufacturing a vanadium-based electrolyte (abstract). Utsumi also teaches the reduction of a vanadium ion solution being performed under an inert atmosphere (page 7 lines 15-20). The inert gas is one or more selected from the group consisting of nitrogen and argon (page 18 lines 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to perform the reduction of the vanadium ion solution of Keshavarz under an inert atmosphere of argon or nitrogen as taught by Utsumi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this as the amount of dissolved oxygen in the electrolyte is reduced, which prevents damage to the electrodes of a flow battery that dissolved oxygen in the electrolyte can cause (page 17 line 19 to page 18 line 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan Lovasz Examiner, Art Unit 1788 02/19/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788