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 1-5 and 8-12 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-5 are withdrawn in the application
Claims 6, 7, and 13 are cancelled in the application.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-5, drawn to a battery flow system.
Group II, claims 8-12, drawn to a method of controlling a flow battery system.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the flow battery system of claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Mittal (WIPO Patent Application Publication no. 2020/144509).
Mittal teaches a flow battery system (abstract) comprising a positive electrolyte tank containing a positive electrolyte ([82] and fig. 6 ref. #304) and a negative electrolyte tank containing a negative electrolyte ([82] and fig. 6 ref. #302). The battery system also contains a primary stack (cell, [82] and fig. 6 ref. #306-1) comprising a positive porous electrode and a negative porous electrode separated by a membrane ([45], and fig. 1 ref. #108, #110, and #112), the positive porous electrode of the primary stack and the negative porous electrode of the primary stack being coupled to a power bus (negative bipolar plate and positive bipolar plate, [47], and fig. 1 ref. #114 and #116).
The flow system also contains a primary stack positive electrolyte pump configured to pump positive electrolyte from the positive electrolyte tank though the positive electrode of the primary stack (sperate pump, [48], and fig. 1 ref.# 118-2) and a primary stack negative electrolyte pump configured to pump negative electrolyte from the negative electrolyte tank though the negative electrode of the primary stack (sperate pump, [48], and fig. 1 ref.# 118-1).
Mittal also teaches an auxiliary stack (cell, [82] and fig. 6 ref. #306-2) comprising a positive porous electrode and a negative porous electrode separated by a membrane ([45], and fig. 1 ref. #108, #110, and #112), the positive porous electrode of the auxiliary stack and the negative porous electrode of the auxiliary stack being coupled to the power bus (negative bipolar plate and positive bipolar plate, [47], and fig. 1 ref. #114 and #116). There is an auxiliary stack positive electrolyte pump configured to pump positive electrolyte from the positive electrolyte tank though the positive electrode of the auxiliary stack ([86], fig. 6 ref. #604-2) and an auxiliary stack negative electrolyte pump configured to pump negative electrolyte from the negative electrolyte tank though the negative electrode of the auxiliary stack ([86], fig. 6 ref. #602-2).
Mittal also teaches a controller configured to activate and deactivate the primary stack positive electrolyte pump, the primary stack negative electrolyte pump, the auxiliary stack positive electrolyte pump, and the auxiliary stack negative electrolyte pump based on a detected power load on the power bus ([22] and [85]-[86]). The controller is configured to activate the auxiliary stack positive electrolyte pump and the auxiliary stack negative electrolyte pump if the detected power load on the power bus is greater than a first threshold power load ([72], the output limit of the first stack), and to intermittently deactivate the primary stack positive electrolyte pump and the primary stack negative electrolyte pump if the detected power load on the power bus is less than a second threshold power load which is lower than the first threshold power load ([61] and [86], when there is no load on the primary stack).
When the primary stack positive electrolyte pump and the primary stack negative electrolyte pump are deactivated, power is supplied to the power bus from the positive electrolyte within the positive porous electrode of the primary stack and the negative electrolyte within the negative porous electrode of the primary ([86], as the porous membranes will still contain the electrolyte and have not been electrically isolated from the flow battery unit.
During a telephone conversation with Douglas J. Bucklin on 03/16/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of a method of controlling a flow battery system, claims 8-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-5 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference number 132 is used to refer to both the negative porous electrode (page 8 line 1) and the positive electrode current collector (page 8 line 3).
Reference number 142 is used to refer to both the negative porous electrode (page 8 line 6) and the positive electrode current collector (page 8 line 8).
Page 13 lines 19-24 reads “As shown in FIG. 5, the controller 160 controls the flow battery system such that the primary stack pumps (the primary stack positive electrolyte pump 136 and the primary stack negative electrode pump 137) are activated and the auxiliary stack pumps (the auxiliary stack positive electrolyte pump 146 and the auxiliary stack negative electrode pump 147) are deactivated and the controls the relays 156 to disconnect the auxiliary stack 140 to the power bus 150.” The underlined section appears to be a typo and is not understandable. This needs to be corrected without adding new matter to the specification.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "positive electrolyte" in lines 8 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the positive electrolyte that is being referred to is the positive electrolyte previously identified in the positive electrolyte tank, a new positive electrolyte added to the positive electrolyte tank, a combination of the two, or a separate electrolyte altogether.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "negative electrolyte" in lines 10 and 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the negative electrolyte that is being referred to is the negative electrolyte previously identified in the negative electrolyte tank, a new negative electrolyte added to the negative electrolyte tank, a combination of the two, or a separate electrolyte altogether.
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)(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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mittal (WIPO Patent Application Publication no. 2020/144509).
Regarding Claim 8, Mittal teaches a method for controlling a flow battery system (abstract), the flow battery system comprising a positive electrolyte tank containing a positive electrolyte ([82] and fig. 6 ref. #304) and a negative electrolyte tank containing a negative electrolyte ([82] and fig. 6 ref. #302). The battery system also contains a primary stack (cell, [82] and fig. 6 ref. #306-1) comprising a positive porous electrode and a negative porous electrode separated by a membrane ([45], and fig. 1 ref. #108, #110, and #112), the positive porous electrode of the primary stack and the negative porous electrode of the primary stack being coupled to a power bus (negative bipolar plate and positive bipolar plate, [47], and fig. 1 ref. #114 and #116).
The flow system also contains a primary stack positive electrolyte pump configured to pump positive electrolyte from the positive electrolyte tank though the positive electrode of the primary stack (sperate pump, [48], and fig. 1 ref.# 118-2) and a primary stack negative electrolyte pump configured to pump negative electrolyte from the negative electrolyte tank though the negative electrode of the primary stack (sperate pump, [48], and fig. 1 ref.# 118-1).
Mittal also teaches an auxiliary stack (cell, [82] and fig. 6 ref. #306-2) comprising a positive porous electrode and a negative porous electrode separated by a membrane ([45], and fig. 1 ref. #108, #110, and #112), the positive porous electrode of the auxiliary stack and the negative porous electrode of the auxiliary stack being coupled to the power bus (negative bipolar plate and positive bipolar plate, [47], and fig. 1 ref. #114 and #116). There is an auxiliary stack positive electrolyte pump configured to pump positive electrolyte from the positive electrolyte tank though the positive electrode of the auxiliary stack ([86], fig. 6 ref. #604-2) and an auxiliary stack negative electrolyte pump configured to pump negative electrolyte from the negative electrolyte tank though the negative electrode of the auxiliary stack ([86], fig. 6 ref. #602-2).
Mittal also teaches the method comprising monitoring a detected power load on the power bus, done using a current sensor ([21]), then activating the auxiliary stack positive electrolyte pump and the auxiliary stack negative electrolyte pump if the detected power load on the power bus is greater than a first threshold power load ([72], the output limit of the first stack). Next, intermittently deactivating the primary stack positive electrolyte pump and the primary stack negative electrolyte pump if the detected power load on the power bus is less than a second threshold power load which is lower than the first threshold power load ([61] and [86], when there is no load on the primary stack).
When the primary stack positive electrolyte pump and the primary stack negative electrolyte pump are deactivated, power is supplied to the power bus from the positive electrolyte within the positive porous electrode of the primary stack and the negative electrolyte within the negative porous electrode of the primary ([86], as the porous membranes will still contain the electrolyte and are not required to have been electrically isolated from the flow battery unit.
Regarding Claim 9, Mittal teaches the positive porous electrode of the auxiliary stack and the negative porous electrode of the auxiliary stack are coupled to the power bus by relays (isolation switches, [84], ref. #502-2) and the method further comprises controlling switching of the relays based on the detected power load on the power bus ([85]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hennessy (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0154364).
Regarding Claim 8, Hennessy teaches a battery flow system (redox battery energy storage system) including a primary and auxiliary stacks (multiple energy storage stacks) (abstract). The flow battery system comprises a positive electrolyte tank (catholyte storage reservoir) containing a positive electrolyte (catholyte solution) ([0012], and fig. 1 ref. #116, #134) and a negative electrolyte tank (anolyte storage reservoir) containing a negative electrolyte (anolyte solution) ([0011], and fig. 1 ref. #114, #120). A primary stack comprising a positive porous electrode and a negative porous electrode ([0009], and fig. 1 ref. #108, #112) separated by a membrane ([0010], and fig. 1 ref. #18). While Hennessy does not explicitly state that the positive electrode and negative electrode are porous, electrodes in flow batteries must have some level of porosity to allow ions to pass through to enable functioning of the flow battery system. The positive porous electrode of the primary stack and the negative porous electrode of the primary stack being coupled to a power bus (connected through DC/DC converters) ([0017], and fig. 2 ref. #202, #208).
Hennessy also teaches a primary stack positive electrolyte pump configured to pump positive electrolyte from the positive electrolyte tank though the positive electrode of the primary stack ([0012], and fig. 1 ref. #140) and a primary stack negative electrolyte pump configured to pump negative electrolyte from the negative electrolyte tank though the negative electrode of the primary stack ([0011], and fig. 1 ref. #126).
Hennessy also teaches an auxiliary stack (one of the secondary stacks, see fig. 2 ref. #100) comprising a positive porous electrode and a negative porous electrode ([0009], and fig. 1 ref. #108, #112) separated by a membrane ([0010], and fig. 1 ref. #18). The positive porous electrode of the auxiliary stack and the negative porous electrode of the auxiliary stack being coupled to the power bus (connected through DC/DC converters) ([0017], and fig. 2 ref. #202, #208).
Hennessy also teaches an auxiliary stack positive electrolyte pump configured to pump positive electrolyte from the positive electrolyte tank though the positive electrode of the auxiliary stack (the pump for the secondary stack) ([0012], and fig. 1 ref. #140) and an auxiliary stack negative electrolyte pump configured to pump negative electrolyte from the negative electrolyte tank though the negative electrode of the auxiliary stack (the pump for the secondary stack) ([0011], and fig. 1 ref. #126).
Hennessy also teaches a controller (electronic control and monitoring system) configured to activate and deactivate the primary stack positive electrolyte pump, the primary stack negative electrolyte pump, the auxiliary stack positive electrolyte pump, and the auxiliary stack negative electrolyte pump based on a detected power load on the power bus ([0015], [0024]). The controller is configured to activate the auxiliary stack positive electrolyte pump and the auxiliary stack negative electrolyte pump if the detected power load on the power bus increases above a threshold, and deactivate the auxiliary stack positive electrolyte pump and the auxiliary stack negative electrolyte pump if the detected power load on the power bus is below that threshold ([0023]-[0024]). The primary stack positive electrolyte pump and the primary stack negative electrolyte pump can be intermittently deactivated if the detected power load on the power bus is less than a second threshold (no detected power load) that is lower than the first threshold (if there is no detected power load, the primary stack will not be in use, and will be activated again when there is a detected power load) ([0023]-[0024]). When the primary stack positive electrolyte pump and the primary stack negative electrolyte pump are deactivated, power is supplied to the power bus from the positive electrolyte within the positive porous electrode of the primary stack and the negative electrolyte within the negative porous electrode of the primary stack, as the primary stack is not required to be electrically disconnected from the power bus.
Regarding Claim 9, Hennessy also teaches the positive porous electrode of the auxiliary stack and the negative porous electrode of the auxiliary stack are coupled to the power bus by relays (load switches) ([0013] and [0015], and fig. 1 ref. # 154) and the method further comprises controlling switching of the relays based on the detected power load on the power bus (an electronic control and monitoring system can control the fuel cell stack. One of the ways to take the fuel cell stack out of discharging mode is by disabling the relay (load switch), which the electronic control and monitoring system would do once the threshold power limit was sent by the control signal) ([0015], [0023])
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal (WIPO Patent Application Publication no. 2020/144509).
Regarding Claim 10, Mittal teaches the first threshold power load being anything greater than 100% of the power rating of the primary stack ([72]). While this value does not fall within the claimed range of 90% to 100%, it is close. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claim 11, Mittal teaches the second threshold is 0% of the power rating of the primary stack ([61] and [86], when there is no load on the primary stack). While this value does not fall within the claimed range of 2% to 10%, it is close. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal (WIPO Patent Application Publication no. 2020/144509) in view of Edmiston (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0088171).
Mittal is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 10, In the alternative if Mittal is silent to the first threshold power load is between 90% and 100% of the power rating of the primary stack.
Edmiston teaches a system and methods for independently controlling the operation of fuel cell stacks (title). The system includes a plurality of stacks (fuel cell stacks) that can be enabled and disabled dependent on the detected power load (electrical load) (abstract and [0006]). The first threshold power load (open circuit voltage level) is between 60% and 95% of the power rating of the primary stack ([0085]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 90% to 100% of the power rating of the primary stack. 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, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a first threshold of 60% to 95% of the power rating of the primary stack in the method of Mittal as taught by Edmiston. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it would prevent the flow battery system from being temporarily overloaded and being unable to provide sufficient power to the electrical load.
Regarding Claim 11, in the alternative if Mittal is silent to the second threshold is between 2% and 10% of the power rating of the primary stack.
Edmiston further teaches a second threshold, lower than the first threshold, at which the primary stack (a fuel cell stack) can be disabled. This threshold ranges from 1% to 50% of the power rating of the primary stack (the power output of an Nth fuel cell stack, when N = 1) ([0073]). This overlaps with the claimed second threshold range of 2% to 10% of the power rating of the primary stack. 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, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a second threshold of 1% to 50% of the power rating of the primary stack as taught by Edmiston in the method of Hennessy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as disabling the electrolyte pumps of Mittal at this second threshold would reduce parasitic energy losses from unnecessary pump activation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/144509) in view of Song (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0316031).
Mittal is relied upon as described above.
Mittal is silent to the method including intermittently deactivating the primary stack positive electrolyte pump and the primary stack negative electrolyte pump if the detected power load on the power bus is less than a second threshold power load comprises, over an hour period, deactivating the primary stack positive electrolyte pump and the primary stack negative electrolyte pump for at least 50 minutes.
Song teaches a method for operating a redox flow battery system (abstract). The method includes a step of switching the flow battery system into an idle mode when the flow battery system is not in a charging or discharging mode (abstract). Next, when the flow battery system is in idle mode over an hour period, Song teaches deactivating the primary stack positive electrolyte pump and the primary stack negative electrolyte pump for at 50 minutes ([0064]).
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 deactivate the electrolyte pumps when below the second threshold in the method of Mittal for 50 minutes of an hour period as taught by Song. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this step as it would allow for decreased start up time when the flow battery system is required to give a larger output of energy (Song, [0057]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennessy (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0154364) in view of Edmiston (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0088171).
Hennessy is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 10, Hennessy is silent to the first threshold power load is between 90 % and 100% of the power rating of the primary stack.
Edmiston teaches a system and methods for independently controlling the operation of fuel cell stacks (title). The system includes a plurality of stacks (fuel cell stacks) that can be enabled and disabled dependent on the detected power load (electrical load) (abstract and [0006]). The first threshold power load (open circuit voltage level) is between 60% and 95% of the power rating of the primary stack ([0085]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 90% to 100% of the power rating of the primary stack. 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, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a first threshold of 60% to 95% of the power rating of the primary stack in the method of Hennessy as taught by Edmiston. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it would prevent the flow battery system from being temporarily overloaded and being unable to provide sufficient power to the electrical load.
Regarding Claim 11, Hennessy is also silent to the second threshold is between 2% and 10% of the power rating of the primary stack.
Edmiston further teaches a second threshold, lower than the first threshold, at which the primary stack (a fuel cell stack) can be disabled. This threshold ranges from 1% to 50% of the power rating of the primary stack (the power output of an Nth fuel cell stack, when N = 1) ([0073]). This overlaps with the claimed second threshold range of 2% to 10% of the power rating of the primary stack. 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, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a second threshold of 1% to 50% of the power rating of the primary stack as taught by Edmiston in the method of Hennessy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as disabling the electrolyte pumps of Hennessy at this second threshold would reduce parasitic energy losses from unnecessary pump activation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennessy (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0154364) in view of Song (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0316031).
Hennessy is relied upon as described above.
Hennessy is silent to the method including intermittently deactivating the primary stack positive electrolyte pump and the primary stack negative electrolyte pump if the detected power load on the power bus is less than a second threshold power load comprises, over an hour period, deactivating the primary stack positive electrolyte pump and the primary stack negative electrolyte pump for at least 50 minutes.
Song teaches a method for operating a redox flow battery system (abstract). The method includes a step of switching the flow battery system into an idle mode when the flow battery system is not in a charging or discharging mode (abstract). Next, when the flow battery system is in idle mode over an hour period, Song teaches deactivating the primary stack positive electrolyte pump and the primary stack negative electrolyte pump for at 50 minutes ([0064]).
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 deactivate the electrolyte pumps when below the second threshold in the method of Hennessy for 50 minutes of an hour period as taught by Song. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this step as it would allow for decreased start up time when the flow battery system is required to give a larger output of energy (Song, [0057]).
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.
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 04/02/2026