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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed June 9, 2023 and June 30, 2023 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received on June 9, 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: having the preamble “A rechargeable flow battery as in claim” (preamble of all dependent claims). However, a rechargeable flow battery is set forth in the independent claim. Accordingly, it is suggested to change “A” to ‘The” and to change “as in” to ‘of’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: propagating the descriptors “zinc-based and/or carbon based” to the “conductive particles” (lines 3-4). For clarity, it is suggested to set the different types of particles separately (i.e. ‘zinc-based conductive particles and/or carbon-based conductive particles’). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: including the superfluous phase “in that” (lines 4-5) (removal is suggested). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: including the superfluous phase “in that” (line 5) (removal is suggested). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: it does not use the same verbal form regarding terms of a list (gerund form “shifting” is used in line 4, while infinitive form “to increase” is used in line 5; use of ‘increasing’ instead is suggested). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: it does not use the same verbal form regarding terms of a list (gerund forms “shifting” (line 4) and “acting” (line 5) are used, while infinitive form “to increase” is used in line 5; use of ‘increasing’ instead is suggested). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: having an awkward phares using a pronoun “wherein it comprises” (line 2) (use of ‘…claim 1 comprising: a separator…’ is suggested). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: using “the two half cells” (line 3). (Since antecedent basis is given to “a first half cell” and “a second half cell” (claim 1); using the same language is suggested, i.e. ‘the first half cell and the second half cell’.) Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: propagating the descriptors “zinc-based and/or carbon based” to the “conductive particles” (lines 2-3). For clarity, it is suggested to set the different types of particles separately (i.e. ‘zinc-based conductive particles and/or carbon-based conductive particles’). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: propagating the descriptors “zinc-based and/or carbon based” to the “conductive particles” (lines 2-3). For clarity, it is suggested to set the different types of particles separately (i.e. ‘zinc-based conductive particles and/or carbon-based conductive particles’). 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 5, 12 and 14 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 5 recites the limitation "the relative electrolyte" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (Note: The first electrolyte exists, as does the second electrolyte. It is unclear if the relative electrolyte refers back to one of the existing electrolytes, and if so which one(s).) Since claim 14, is dependent upon claim 12, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the ion-selective membrane" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0280899 (Yadav et al.) in view of CN 110534784 (Ding et al.).
As to claim 1, Yadav et al. teach a rechargeable flow battery (indicated discharging and recharging) (para 0014) comprising:
- a first half cell comprising a first work tank (cathode compartment [1]), a first electrode (cathode material with cathode current collector [5]; para 0026) placed in the first work tank (cathode compartment [1]), a first electrolyte (catholyte), a first external tank (catholyte vessel [11]) connected with said first work tank (cathode compartment [1]) in a closed loop configuration (fig. 2), and a first pump [12] configured to recirculate said first electrolyte between the first work tank (cathode compartment [1]) and the first external tank (catholyte vessel [11]); and
- a second half cell comprising a second work tank (anode compartment [2]), a second electrode (anode material with anode current collector [6]; para 0032) placed in the second work tank (anode compartment [2], a second electrolyte (anolyte), a second external tank (anolyte vessel [21]) connected to the second work tank (anode compartment [2]) in a closed loop configuration (fig. 2), and a second pump [12] configured to recirculate the second electrolyte between the second work tank (anode compartment [2]) and the second external tank (anolyte vessel [21]);
wherein the first electrolyte is an alkaline solution comprising at least one compound source of Zn(OH)42- ions (basic/alkaline solutions using zinc oxide, zinc chloride, zinc acetate, zinc carbonate set forth; para 0035, 0055), which are suitable to be electrochemically reduced to the metallic state during the charging process (property of the material; materials the same as the instant application – see para 0035 of Yadav et al. as compared to p8 of the disclosure), and the second electrolyte is a solution comprising at least one compound source of MnO42- ions (solution having a pH of 7 (neutral) and using potassium permanganate set forth; para 0025), which are suitable to be electrochemically oxidized to MnO4- during the charging process (property of the material; materials the same as the instant application – see para 0025 of Yadav et al. as compared to p16 of the disclosure).
Yadav et al. do not teach that the second electrolyte is an alkaline (basic) solution.
However, Ding et al., in a similar field of invention, teach of a zinc/permanganate system (para 0002, 0016, 0019). Specifically, the permanganate solution is an alkaline aqueous solution (para 0019). The motivation for having an alkaline permanganate solution is to have a flow battery system that is low cost, excellent reversibility, good stability, and high energy density (para 0031). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) for having an alkaline permanganate solution (as taught by Ding et al. and applied to Yadev et al.) in order to have a flow battery system that is low cost, has excellent has reversibility, has good stability, and has high energy density.
As to claim 2, Yadev et al. teach the compound source of Zn(OH)42- comprises a zinc based salt chosen among zinc oxide, zinc hydroxide, zinc acetate, zinc chloride, zinc carbonate or a combination of two or more thereof, or electroactive particles containing zinc ions in different oxidation states (zinc oxide, zinc chloride, zinc acetate, zinc carbonate set forth) (para 0035).
As to claim 3, Yadev et al. teach the compound source of MnO4- comprises a permanganate based salt chosen among lithium permanganate, sodium permanganate, potassium permanganate or a combination of two or more thereof, or electroactive particles containing permanganate ions in different oxidation states (potassium permanganate set forth) (para 0025).
As to claim 11, Yadav et al. teach the first electrolyte further comprises one or more of:
- a salt, oxide or hydroxide of one or more metals capable of shifting the zinc electrochemical potential and to increase the overvoltage of hydrogen evolution, selected among Pb, Mn, Sn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Mg, Ti, Co, Al, Li, Zr;
- a hydrogen evolution suppressor selected among silicates, boric acid, the metals Pb, Bi, Mn, W, Cd, As, Sb, Sn and In, the oxides of said metals, or a combination of two or more thereof;
- Rochelle salts;
- a leveling agent selected among polyethylene glycol, polyethylenimine, thiourea, quaternary ammonium salts, dextrins, cyclodextrins, sucrose, polytetrafluoroethylene, sodium dodecyl sulfate, polyacrylic acid, glucose, cellulose or a combination of two or more thereof;
- a plasticizer additive selected among polyols, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol, propylene glycol, glycerol, mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol, monosaccharides, fatty acids, urea, ethanolamine, triethanolamine, vegetable oils, lecithin, waxes, amino acids, surfactants and oleic acid;
- a thickener additive; and
- an organic additive selected among xanthan gum, gum arabic, carboxymethyl cellulose, chitosan, agar-agar, sodium alginate and polyethylene oxide (as Vadav et al. teach that the anolyte can be made of a combination including alkaline hydroxides, such as lithium hydroxide; para 0035).
As to claim 12, Vadev et a. teach the second electrolyte further comprises one or more of:
- a salt, oxide or hydroxide of one or more metals capable of shifting the permanganates redox potential, increase the catholyte conductivity and acting as balancing ions through the ion-selective membrane, selected among Pb, Sn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Mg, Zn, Ti, Rb, Cs, Ca, K, Sr, Co, AI, Li, Zr or a combination of two or more thereof;
- a plasticizer additive selected among polyols, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol, propylene glycol, glycerol, mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol, monosaccharides, fatty acids, urea, ethanolamine, triethanolamine, vegetable oils, lecithin, waxes, amino acids, surfactants and oleic acid;
- a thickener additive; and
- an organic additive selected among xanthan gum, gum arabic, carboxymethyl cellulose, chitosan, agar-agar, sodium alginate and polyethylene oxide (as Vadav et al. teach that the catholyte can be made of a combination including lithium hydroxide; para 0025).
As to claim 13, Vadav et al. teach the flow battery comprises a separator [3] between the two half cells, and in that the separator [3] is chosen between:
- a separator of uniform composition selected among a porous separator without active ion-exchange material, an ion-selective porous membrane, a solid state ceramic separators or a glass-ceramic separator, or a membrane made of a co-polymer of perfluorosulfonic acid and polytetrafluoroethylene; and
- a multilayer separator comprising at least a first homogeneous layer coupled to a second layer, said second layer being made of one among poly-vinyl alcohol (PVA), chitosan, poly-acrylic acid (PAA), gelatin and co polymer of perfluorosulfonic acid and polytetrafluoroethylene, said second layer containing ionic particles and/or carbon-based conductive particles (Vadav et al. teach of single and multi-layer separators including Nafion (a co-polymer of perfluorosulfonic acid and polytetrafluoroethylene), polyvinyl alcohol and graphene oxide composite, ionic conductors (LISICON and NASICON), as well as ion selective materials (carbonaceous materials, such as graphene listed) in combination therewith) (para 0020).
Claim(s) 4-8 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. in view of Ding et al., as applied to claim ` above, and further in view of US 2015/003606 (Chen et al.).
As to claim 4, Yadav et al. do not teach the first electrolyte and/or the second electrolyte further comprises conductive particles.
However, Chen et al., in a similar field of endeavor (flow battery; title) teaches of adding conductive additives, such as carbon black or metal particles, in the positive electrode suspension and negative electrode suspension (para 0121-0122). The motivation for adding conductive additives (such as carbon black or metal particles) in either the positive electrode suspension or negative electrode suspension is to improve/ensure conductivity of the system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to add conductive additives (such as carbon black or metal particles) in either the positive electrode suspension or negative electrode suspension is to improve/ensure conductivity of the system. A the very least, combining the conductive additive with the positive electrode solution and the negative electrode solution would yield the predictable result of acting as a conductive additive therein, as each element (electrode solution and conductive additive) merely perform the same function as they do separately. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to combine the conductive additive with the positive electrode solution and the negative electrode solution, as the combination would yield the predictable result of acting as a conductive additive therein, as each element (electrode solution and conductive additive) merely perform the same function as they do separately. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 5, Yadav et al. do not teach (a) that the first electrode and/or the second electrode is a static electrode, (b) the conductive particles being an additive to the relative electrolyte.
With respect to (a): Ding et al. teach of using a zinc plate as the negative electrode (first electrode) (para 0055) (thus being stationary). The substitution of a movable first electrode with a stationary first electrode would yield the predictable result of providing a functional electrode, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute a movable first electrode (in Yadav et al.) with a stationary first electrode (in Ding et al.), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing a functional electrode, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Regarding (b): The combination renders the limitation obvious, as Chen et al. has been relied upon to render obvious the addition of conductive additive in each of the positive and negative electrode solutions (thus both the first and second electrolytes). See the rejection to claim 4 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 6, Yadav et al. teach the first electrode and/or the second electrode is a flowable electrode (fig. 2; para 0046-0049). Additionally, Chen et al. has been relied upon to render obvious the addition of conductive additive in each of the positive and negative electrode solutions (thus both the first and second electrolytes has the conductive particles). See the rejection to claim 4 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 7, the combination renders obvious the conductive particles in the first electrolyte comprise zinc-based and/or carbon-based conductive particles chosen among zinc particles, zinc oxide particles, zinc coated particles, graphene, expanded graphite, reduced graphene oxide, active carbon, carbon black, acetylene black, carbon nanotubes or a combination of two or more thereof, as Chen et al. has been relied upon to render obvious the addition of carbon black in the first electrolyte and the second electrolyte. See the rejection to claim 4 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 8, the combination renders obvious the conductive particles in the second electrolyte comprise carbon-based conductive particles chosen among graphene, expanded graphite, reduced graphene oxide, active carbon, carbon blacks, acetylene black, carbon nanotubes or a combination of two or more thereof, as Chen et al. has been relied upon to render obvious the addition of carbon black in the first electrolyte and the second electrolyte. See the rejection to claim 4 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 14, the combination renders obvious the conductive particles in the first electrolyte comprise zinc-based and/or carbon-based conductive particles chosen among zinc particles, zinc oxide particles, zinc coated particles, graphene, expanded graphite, reduced graphene oxide, active carbon, carbon black, acetylene black, carbon nanotubes or a combination of two or more thereof, as Chen et al. has been relied upon to render obvious the addition of carbon black in the first electrolyte and the second electrolyte. See the rejection to claim 4 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 15, the combination renders obvious the conductive particles in the first electrolyte comprise zinc-based and/or carbon-based conductive particles chosen among zinc particles, zinc oxide particles, zinc coated particles, graphene, expanded graphite, reduced graphene oxide, active carbon, carbon black, acetylene black, carbon nanotubes or a combination of two or more thereof, as Chen et al. has been relied upon to render obvious the addition of carbon black in the first electrolyte and the second electrolyte. See the rejection to claim 4 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. in view of Ding et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0131620 (Bartling).
As to claim 9, Yadav et al. teach the compound source of Zn(OH)42- comprises a zinc based salt chosen among zinc oxide, zinc hydroxide, zinc acetate, zinc chloride, zinc carbonate or a combination of two or more thereof (zinc oxide, zinc chloride, zinc acetate, zinc carbonate set forth) (para 0035).
Yadav et al. do no teach that the first electrolyte further comprises electroactive particles containing zinc ions in different oxidation states.
However, Bartling, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in redox cells that multiple oxidation states of materials such as zinc can be present (para 0066). The motivation for having multiple oxidation sates of zinc is to have ions for conductivity purposes (para 0066-0067). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to add electroactive particles containing zinc ions in different oxidation states to improve conductivity of the system. A the very least, combining electroactive particles containing zinc ions in different oxidation states as a further compound source of Zn(OH)4- would yield the predictable result of acting as a source of Zn(OH)4-, as each element merely perform the same function as they do separately (both sources of Zn(OH)4-). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to combine electroactive particles containing zinc ions in different oxidation states as a further compound source of Zn(OH)4-, as the combination would yield the predictable result of acting as a source of Zn(OH)4-, as each element merely perform the same function as they do separately (both sources of Zn(OH)4-). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 10, Yadav et al. teach the compound source of MnO4- comprises a permanganate based salt chosen among lithium permanganate, sodium permanganate, potassium permanganate or a combination of two or more thereof (potassium permanganate set forth) (para 0025).
Yadav et al. do not teach the second electrolyte further comprises electroactive particles containing permanganate ions in different oxidation states.
However, Bartling, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in redox cells that multiple oxidation states of materials can be present (para 0066). The motivation for having multiple oxidation sates materials is to have ions for conductivity purposes (para 0066-0067). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to add electroactive particles containing permanganate ions in different oxidation states to improve conductivity of the system. A the very least, combining electroactive particles containing permanganate ions in different oxidation states as a further compound source of MnO42- would yield the predictable result of acting as a source of MnO42-, as each element merely perform the same function as they do separately (both sources of Zn(OH)4-). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to combine electroactive particles containing zinc ions in different oxidation states as a further compound source of MnO42-, as the combination would yield the predictable result of acting as a source of MnO42-, as each element merely perform the same function as they do separately (both sources of MnO42-). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I). (Note: Although Bartling’s teaching drawn towards transition metals (para 0066), it is applicable to both the anolyte and catholyte (para 0067), and thus the general teaching is still applicable to a permanganate species for the same reasons set forth above.)
Conclusion
Note: No other prior art considered pertinent by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 ET.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759