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 .
Amendments to the specification and claims, filed 07 May 2026, have been entered in the above identified application
Claims 1-12 are pending in the application
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn in the application
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of a flow battery system of claims 1-6 and 11-12 in the reply filed on 7 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the system according to claim 1 is novel in view of Mosso, due to Mosso not teaching the technical special feature of the feed circuit for the catholyte (or anolyte) comprising a circulation authorization device for either letting or not letting circulate the catholyte (or anolyte) from the catholyte (or anolyte) tank to the cathodic (or anodic) compartments (Applicant’s arguments, page 5, lines 23-28).
This is not found persuasive because Mosso does teach the feed circuit for the catholyte (or anolyte) comprises a circulation authorization device ([0068] and [0076], flow control devices and fig. 3 ref. #40a and #40c).
The feed circuit of the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, comprises a circulation authorization device ([0068] and [0076], flow control devices and fig. 3 ref. #40a and #40c).
The limitation “for either letting or not letting circulate the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, from the catholyte, respectively the anolyte tank, to the cathode, respectively anode compartments,” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. As the circulation authorization device is capable of either letting or not letting circulate the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, from the catholyte, respectively the anolyte tank, to the cathode, respectively anode compartments ([0057], the flow control devices may be pumps that can operate in both a forward and reverse direction, in turn either letting circulate the catholyte (or anolyte) from the catholyte (or anolyte) tank to the cathodic (or anodic) compartments, or preventing that circulation from occurring), a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
The traversal is also on the grounds that the system according to claim 1 is novel in view of Mosso, due to Mosso not teaching the technical special feature of the drainage pumps are servo-controlled by a presence detector for detecting the presence of catholyte or anolyte in at least part of the feed circuit (Applicant’s arguments, page 5, lines 23-28). This argument is found persuasive, as while Moss does teach the drainage pumps being controlled by a presence detector for detecting the presence of catholyte, respectively of anolyte in at least part of said feed circuit of catholyte, respectively of anolyte ([0066]-[0068], flow control system controls the pump by measuring the presence of the catholyte or anolyte through hydraulic pressure), Mosso does not explicitly teach that the drainage pumps are servo-controlled.
However, Groups I and II nonetheless lack unity of invention in view of the combination of Mosso et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0057141) in view of Xu et. al. (Chinese Patent No. 210167442) as set forth below:
Mosso teaches a system comprising one or a plurality of redox flow batteries (title, and [0009]) comprising a stack of a plurality of electrochemical cells ([0032]). The electrochemical cells comprise a cathode compartment (positive half-cell chamber) ([0033]) and an anode compartment (negative half-cell chamber) ([0033], each contained in the cell block of fig. 3, ref. #18a, [0036]). The cathode compartment is in fluidic communication via a feed circuit with one or a plurality of tanks of electrolyte called catholyte ([0032] and fig. 3 ref. #14), and the anode compartment being in fluidic communication via a feed circuit with one or a plurality of tanks of electrolyte called anolyte ([0032] and fig. 3 ref. #12).
The feed circuit of the catholyte, respectively of the anolyte, comprises a circulation pump of the catholyte, respectively of the anolyte, from the tank to the cathodic or anodic compartments ([0033], and fig. 3 ref. #16). The system also includes a catholyte drainage pump and an anolyte drainage pump ([0053], fig. 3 ref. #40b and #40d, which may be pumps, [0047]), the catholyte, respectively anolyte drainage pump being controlled by a presence detector ([0066]-[0068], flow control system controls the pump by measuring the presence of the catholyte or anolyte through hydraulic pressure).
The limitation “for detecting the presence of catholyte, respectively of anolyte in at least part of said feed circuit of catholyte, respectively of anolyte,” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. As the presence detector are capable of detecting the presence of catholyte, respectively of anolyte in at least part of said feed circuit of catholyte, respectively of anolyte ([0068] and fig. 5, ref. #S1-S2), a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
The feed circuit of the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, comprises a circulation authorization device ([0068] and [0076], flow control devices and fig. 3 ref. #40a and #40c).
The limitation “for either letting or not letting circulate the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, from the catholyte, respectively the anolyte tank, to the cathode, respectively anode compartments,” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. As the circulation authorization device is capable of either letting or not letting circulate the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, from the catholyte, respectively the anolyte tank, to the cathode, respectively anode compartments ([0057], the flow control devices may be pumps that can operate in both a forward and reverse direction, in turn either letting circulate the catholyte (or anolyte) from the catholyte (or anolyte) tank to the cathodic (or anodic) compartments, or preventing that circulation from occurring), a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Mosso does not explicitly teach that the drainage pumps are servo-controlled.
Xu teaches a flow battery (fuel battery, title). The flow battery has a water-based cooling system ([0010]) in which the flow of water is regulated using a servo-controlled motor (servo motor, [0025]). The use of a servo-controlled motor is beneficial as it allows for the flow rate of the water output to be controlled electronically by a controller reading dependent on other signal inputs ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a servo-controlled motor as taught by Xu in the flow battery system of Mosso. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion to allow for the flow rate of the electrolyte to be electronically controlled dependent on other signal inputs.
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 1-6 and 11-12 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 “one or a plurality of tanks of electrolyte called catholyte” in lines 4-5 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if "the plurality of tanks of electrolyte" are called catholyte or if the "electrolyte" is called catholyte.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or a plurality of tanks of electrolyte called anolyte” in lines 5-6 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if "the plurality of tanks of electrolyte" are called anolyte or if the "electrolyte" is called anolyte.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tank" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the tank” is in reference to the “one or a plurality of tanks of electrolyte called catholyte,” “one or a plurality of tanks of electrolyte called anolyte,” both groups of tanks, or a separate tank or group of tanks altogether.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 recite the limitation “respectively” which renders the claims vague and indefinite. It is unclear how the term “respectively” is to be interpreted, as it can mean both “in the order given” or “separately.” In the context of the claim limitations it is unclear which interpretation is intended. This clarity issue is present throughout the claims and requires clarification. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting any instance of “respectively” as referring to an alternative (i.e. “a circulation pump of the catholyte, respectively of the anolyte“ being understood as “a circulation pump of the catholyte or of the anolyte”).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the circulation authorization device” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “the circulation authorization device” is in reference to the circulation authorization device of the catholyte feed circuit, the circulation authorization device of the anolyte feed circuit, or both of the circulation authorization devices.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “said drainage pump” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “said drainage pump” is in reference to “a catholyte drainage pump” in claim 1 line 8 or “an anolyte drainage pump” in claim 1 line 9.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said circulation pump” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “said circulation pump” is in reference to the circulation pump of the catholyte, the circulation pump of the anolyte, or both circulation pumps.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “said catholyte, respectively anolyte presence detector” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no “catholyte, respectively anolyte presence detector” has been positively claimed.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “when the presence detector detects the presence of the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, the drainage pump for the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, is in operation” in lines 1-3 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if this limitation means that when the presence detector detects the presence of the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, the drainage pump for the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, is turned on, or if it means that when the presence detector detects the presence of the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, the drainage pump for the catholyte, respectively the anolyte is already turned on.
Claims 2-6 and 11-12 are further rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosso et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0057141) in view of Xu et. al. (Chinese Patent No. 210167442). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-210167442-U
Regarding Claim 1, Mosso teaches a system comprising one or a plurality of redox flow batteries (title, and [0009]) comprising a stack of a plurality of electrochemical cells ([0032]). The electrochemical cells comprise a cathode compartment (positive half-cell chamber) ([0033]) and an anode compartment (negative half-cell chamber) ([0033], each contained in the cell block of fig. 3, ref. #18a, [0036]). The cathode compartment is in fluidic communication via a feed circuit with one or a plurality of tanks of electrolyte called catholyte ([0032] and fig. 3 ref. #14), and the anode compartment being in fluidic communication via a feed circuit with one or a plurality of tanks of electrolyte called anolyte ([0032] and fig. 3 ref. #12).
The feed circuit of the catholyte, respectively of the anolyte, comprises a circulation pump of the catholyte, respectively of the anolyte, from the tank to the cathodic or anodic compartments ([0033], and fig. 3 ref. #16). The system also includes a catholyte drainage pump and an anolyte drainage pump ([0053], fig. 3 ref. #40b and #40d, which may be pumps, [0047]), the catholyte, respectively anolyte drainage pump being controlled by a presence detector ([0066]-[0068], flow control system controls the pump by measuring the presence of the catholyte or anolyte through hydraulic pressure).
The limitation “for detecting the presence of catholyte, respectively of anolyte in at least part of said feed circuit of catholyte, respectively of anolyte,” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. As the presence detector are capable of detecting the presence of catholyte, respectively of anolyte in at least part of said feed circuit of catholyte, respectively of anolyte ([0068] and fig. 5, ref. #S1-S2), a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
The feed circuit of the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, comprises a circulation authorization device ([0068] and [0076], flow control devices and fig. 3 ref. #40a and #40c).
The limitation “for either letting or not letting circulate the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, from the catholyte, respectively the anolyte tank, to the cathode, respectively anode compartments,” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. As the circulation authorization device is capable of either letting or not letting circulate the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, from the catholyte, respectively the anolyte tank, to the cathode, respectively anode compartments ([0057], the flow control devices may be pumps that can operate in both a forward and reverse direction, in turn either letting circulate the catholyte (or anolyte) from the catholyte (or anolyte) tank to the cathodic (or anodic) compartments, or preventing that circulation from occurring), a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Mosso does not explicitly teach that the drainage pumps are servo-controlled.
Xu teaches a flow battery (fuel battery, title). The flow battery has a water-based cooling system ([0010]) in which the flow of water is regulated using a servo-controlled motor (servo motor, [0025]). The use of a servo-controlled motor is beneficial as it allows for the flow rate of the water output to be controlled electronically by a controller reading dependent on other signal inputs ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a servo-controlled motor as taught by Xu in the flow battery system of Mosso. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion to allow for the flow rate of the electrolyte to be electronically controlled dependent on other signal inputs.
Regarding Claim 3, Mosso further teaches the drainage pump is positioned on a circuit at least in part dedicated to the drainage of the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, called drainage circuit (fig. 3, ref. #40b and #40d, see below).
Regarding Claim 4, Mosso further teaches the circulation pump is positioned on a circuit at least in part dedicated to the circulation of the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, towards the electrochemical cells, called the feed circuit (fig. 3 ref. #16, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Mosso teaches the anolyte and catholyte presence detectors ([0068] and fig. 5, ref. #S1-S2). The limitation “for measuring the liquid level of the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, in at least a part of said feed circuit and/or cathode, respectively anode compartments.” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. As Mosso further teaches the catholyte and anolyte presence detectors ([0068] and fig. 5, ref. #S1-S2) are devices capable of measuring the liquid level of the catholyte and anolyte (via measuring pressure, [0068]) in at least a part of the feed circuit, this limitation is made obvious by Mosso.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “when the presence detector detects the presence of the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, the drainage pump for the catholyte, respectively the anolyte, is in operation and the catholyte, respectively the anolyte circulates in the drainage circuit of the catholyte, respectively of the anolyte, and feeds the inlet of the tank of the catholyte, respectively of the anolyte,” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. As the flow battery system of Mosso is capable of operating the drainage pumps (fig. 5, ref. #72 and #74) when the presence detector detects the presence of the catholyte or anolyte (the drainage pipes are regulating the flow speed of the electrolyte, therefore it is occurring when the presence detectors are detecting the anolyte or catholyte, [0068]) to feed the inlet of the tank of the catholyte, respectively of the anolyte (fig. 3, drainage circuit, see above, when the individual cell ref. #19 of fig. 5 is the last cell in the line of cells). a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosso et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0057141) in view of Xu et. al. (Chinese Patent No. 210167442), further in view of D’Anzi (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0266465). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-210167442-U.
Mosso and Xu are relied upon as described above.
Mosso further teaches that the circulation authorization device may be a solenoid valve ([0061] and [0065]).
Modified Mosso does not explicitly teach the circulation authorization device is a three-way solenoid valve connecting either the tank to the circulation pump or connecting the electrochemical cells to the drainage pump
D’Anzi teaches a flow battery has an electrochemical stack, a positive electrolyte, a negative electrolyte, a positive electrolyte tank, and a negative electrolyte tank, with a positive electrolyte pump, a negative electrolyte pump pumping the catholyte and anolyte to the electrochemical cell (abstract, [0021], and fig. 1, ref. #6 and #7). D’Anzi further teaches a circulation authorization device that is a three-way valve ([0021] anodic three-way valve and cathodic three-way valve, fig. 1 ref. #8 and #9, respectively) that connects the tanks to the circulation pumps (through the electrochemical cell, fig. 1 ref. #1). The implementation of these three-way valves allows for a bypass for the electrolytes, in which instead of passing through the electrochemical cell they can go directly to the opposite electrolyte tank (i.e. the catholyte enters the anolyte tank) ([0021]). This allows for a rebalancing of the electrolyte levels of both electrolytes in their respective tanks ([0021]), in turn allowing for improved operation of the flow battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the three-way valve of D’Anzi in the flow battery system of modified Mosso. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion in order to balance the electrolyte levels of the catholyte and anolyte.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosso et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0057141) in view of Xu et. al. (Chinese Patent No. 210167442), further in view of Kell (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0006058). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-210167442-U.
Mosso and Xu are relied upon as described above.
Modified Mosso does not explicitly teach the system is in a container.
Kell teaches a compact redox flow battery (abstract and [0008]). The redox flow battery is held within a container (housing). The housing allows for structural support of the electrolyte tanks, as well as a secondary containment for the electrolyte in the event of a leak ([0182]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to place the flow battery system of modified Mosso in the container of Kell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this container for the structural support and secondary containment abilities.
Regarding Claim 12, the system of modified Mosso, within the container of Kell, can be transported as a whole (Kell, [0066]) or in parts, by either machinery or by hand. Therefore, the limitation is made obvious by modified Mosso.
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 LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 06/17/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights