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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2024 was considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1, 5, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (Zhao et al., “In situ NMR metrology reveals reaction mechanisms in redox flow batteries”, Nature, 2020, Vol 579, pp. 224-228, provided by applicant) . Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches A method for determining the state of charge (Abstract; p. 233, “The Evans method enables the radical concentration to be determined from the magnetic susceptibility. This affords a straightforward approach to track the SOC of the anolyte and catholyte, providing critical information about cell balancing and how it varies with cycle life.”). The SOC is the state of charge. of an electrolyte (Abstract; Fig. 1; p. 225 “ Figure 2a presents the 1H NMR spectra of DHAQ as a function of electrochemical cycling ”) , the method comprising: (a) flowing the electrolyte through a measurement region (Fig. 1; p. 224 “ In on-line detection (Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 1a), the battery is positioned outside the NMR magnet (300 MHz) and one electrolyte solution is pumped through a flow apparatus in the NMR probe, enabling the study of either the catholyte or the anolyte. ”) ; (b) measuring the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte in the measurement region (p. 225 “The concentration of radicals can be readily estimated from this bulk magnetic-susceptibility shift using the Evans method (Supplementary Information equations S8–S16), a well established NMR method for measuring the magnetic susceptibility of a solution”) ; and (c) determining the state of charge of the electrolyte based on the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte (p. 224 “As the fraction of radicals is directly related to the comproportionation equilibrium constant Kc (equation (3); see also Supplementary Information equations S1–S7) and the state of charge (SOC), the plot of radical concentration versus the SOC can then be fitted to the analytical expressions of Supplementary Information equations S6 and S7 (see Extended Data Fig. 4 for an in-depth explanation) to extract Kc”) . Regarding claim 5, Zhao teaches The method of any preceding claim 1, wherein the state of charge of the electrolyte is determined continuously (Fig. 2) . Regarding claim 22, Zhao teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte is within a flow battery (Fig. 1a; p.224 “ In on-line detection (Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 1a), the battery is positioned outside the NMR magnet (300 MHz) and one electrolyte solution is pumped through a flow apparatus in the NMR probe, enabling the study of either the catholyte or the anolyte. The setup requires minimum modification of a laboratory-scale flow battery and can be easily adapted to other solution NMR instruments and coupled with other analytical (flow) characterization methods ”) and the method is for determining the state of charge of a flow battery ( p. 233, “The Evans method enables the radical concentration to be determined from the magnetic susceptibility. This affords a straightforward approach to track the SOC of the anolyte and catholyte, providing critical information about cell balancing and how it varies with cycle life.”) , the method further comprising: (d) determining the state of charge of the flow battery based on the state of charge of the electrolyte (p.228 “ The in situ NMR technique can be readily used to monitor battery self-discharge. ”; “In summary, we have demonstrated two in situ NMR metrologies to study flow batteries. The formation of radicals and fully reduced anions is directly observed in two AQ-based redox flow battery systems, in which their equilibrium concentrations are governed by the potentials of the two single-electron-transfer redox processes. The radical concentrations as a function of SOC were quantified by analysing the bulk magnetic susceptibility changes, enabling the voltage separation of the two successive reductions to be extracted.”) . 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. Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Evans et al. ( US 20140363747 A1 ) . Regarding claim 23, Zhao teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte is within a flow battery (Fig. 1a; p. 229 “ The electrolyte is pumped through the sampling tube and the flow battery ”) and the method is for rebalancing a flow battery, the method further comprising: (d) determining the quantity of redox-active species within the electrolyte based on the state of charge of the electrolyte (Fig. 2c; p.225 “ As the fraction of radicals is directly related to the comproportionation equilibrium constant K c (equation (3); see also Supplementary Information equations S1 – S7) and the state of charge (SOC), the plot of radical concentration versus the SOC can then be fitted to the analytical expressions of Supplementary Information equations S6 and S7 ”) . Zhao does not teach the method comprising: (e) comparing the quantity of redox-active species within the electrolyte to a predetermined reference; and (f) adjusting the concentration of redox-active species within the electrolyte. Evans teaches an analogous method of determining battery health (Abstract), comprising: (e) comparing the quantity of redox-active species within the electrolyte to a predetermined reference (Fig. 11, steps 1140 and 1150; [0067] lines 16-29, “ The first pH range and the second pH range may be predetermined depending on the particular redox flow battery system. For example, a Pourbaix diagram may be used to predetermine the first pH range and the second pH range for the redox flow battery system. If the detected pH is within the predetermined range, method 1100 continues at 1160, where it is determined if an electrolyte state of charge (SOC) imbalance is detected. Detecting an electrolyte SOC imbalance may comprise measuring a change in one or a plurality of electrolyte concentrations, measuring a change in one or a plurality of electrolyte SOC's, and the like. For example, if the total concentration of ferric ions in the positive electrolyte, indicated by its ORP, is substantially imbalanced with the total concentration of ferrous ions, indicated by its ORP, in the negative electrolyte in an IFB system, then an electrolyte SOC imbalance may be detected. ”). The pH ranges and the SOC imbalance, which is based off of the electrolyte concentrations, is the predetermined reference ; and (f) adjusting the concentration of redox-active species within the electrolyte ( [0068] “ If a negative electrolyte pH is above the predetermined pH range at 1150, or an electrolyte SOC imbalance is detected at 1160, method 1100 continues at 1170, where external hydrogen may be supplied from an external source. For example, in an IFB, if the pH of the negative electrolyte increases beyond a first range corresponding to the range where the ferric ions is stable, hydrogen gas may be supplied (e.g., via a controller) to the IFB cell to drive the reduction of ferric ion at the catalyst surface. In this way, the supplied hydrogen gas from an external source may increase the hydrogen partial pressure at the catalyst surface, and may thereby speed up the hydrogen reduction of ferric ion at the catalyst surface, producing protons and reducing the pH of the positive electrolyte. A controller may also supply external hydrogen responsive to a detected electrolyte SOC imbalance. Supplied hydrogen gas from an external source may increase the rate of hydrogen reduction of ferric ion at the catalyst surface, thereby rebalancing the electrolyte SOC in the positive and negative electrolytes. ”) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhao to include the comparison and adjustment of the redox-active species of Evans because it would yield predictable and advantageous results, including determining if the quantity or concentration of species within the electrolyte are undesired and advantageously correcting for the undesired concentration. Regarding claim 24, Zhao in view of Evans teaches The method of claim 23, wherein the concentration of redox- active species within the electrolyte is adjusted b y at least one of ( i ) introducing an additional quantity of one or more redox-active species into the electrolyte, or (ii) chemically or electrochemically reducing or oxidising a portion of the electrolyte (Evans: [0069] lines 1-7, “ In this manner, a method of rebalancing electrolytes in a redox flow battery system may comprise directing hydrogen gas in the redox flow battery system to a catalyst surface, fluidly contacting the hydrogen gas with an electrolyte comprising a metal ion at the catalyst surface; and chemically reducing the metal ion by the hydrogen gas at the catalyst surface ”) . Claim(s) 2 -4, 6-11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Sherwood Scientific (Sherwood Scientific Magnetic Susceptibility Balances for the Study of Diamagnetic and Paramagnetic Properties of Materials, provided by applicant, hereafter “Sherwood”). Regarding claim 2, Zhao teaches The method of claim 1 comprising, as a first step: (a) providing a detector configured to measure the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte in the measurement region (Fig. 1a; p. 225 “The concentration of radicals can be readily estimated from this bulk magnetic-susceptibility shift using the Evans method (Supplementary Information equations S8–S16), a well established NMR method for measuring the magnetic susceptibility of a solution”). Zhao does not teach the method , wherein the detector is a magnetic susceptibility balance. Sherwood teaches an analogous method, wherein the detector is a magnetic susceptibility balance (Magnetic Susceptibility Balance Mk1 and AUTO) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the detector of Zhao to the magnetic susceptibility balance of Sherwood, because it is a known device and would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 3, Zhao teaches The method of claim 1 , comprising, as a first step: (a) providing a first pair of magnet (Fig. 1a, NMR magnet) configured to establish a magnetic field across a measurement region ( Fig 1a; p.229 “ A custom-made medium-wall flow-through NMR sampling tube of 14 cm in length and 10 mm outer diameter was positioned in a micro-imaging probe (Bruker 2.5; Extended Data Fig. 1a). The electrolyte solution flows from the bottom to the top of the tube ”) , and wherein the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte is determined (p.225 “The concentration of radicals can be readily estimated from this bulk magnetic-susceptibility shift using the Evans method (Supplementary Information equations S8–S16), a well established NMR method for measuring the magnetic susceptibility of a solution”) Zhao does not teach the method comprising: (a) providing a first pair of magnets configured to establish a magnetic field across a measurement region, and wherein the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte is determined by measuring the force exerted on the magnets. Sherwood teaches an analogous measuring method, comprising: (a) providing a first pair of magnets configured to establish a magnetic field across a measurement region (p.2 “ Two pairs of magnets are placed at opposite ends of a beam making a balanced system having a magnetic field at each end. ”) , and wherein the magnetic susceptibility (Magnetic Susceptibility Balance) of the electrolyte (p.3 “ The fixed sample tube allows susceptibility measurement of solids, liquids and gases. ”) is determined by measuring the force exerted on the magnets (p.2 “ Introduction of the sample into the magnetic field attempts to deflect the beam and the movement is optically detected. A compensating force is applied by introducing a current through a coil between the other pair of magnets. The current required to maintain the original balance beam position is proportional to the force created by the sample and the direction in which the beam (magnetic field) moves indicates whether the sample is paramagnetic or diamagnetic ”) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to substitute the magnet of Zhao for the pair of magnets for determining the magnetic susceptibility of Sherwood, because the use of magnets for determining magnetic susceptibility is a well-known technique (Sherwood: p.2 “SHERWOOD SCIENTIFIC’S MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY BALANCES are recognised in hundreds of teaching and research laboratories throughout the world. Based on a design by the Late Professor Evans of Imperial College London, they offer a number of significant advantages over traditional methods. The Mk 1 balance adheres closely to Evans’ original design.”) and would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 4, Zhao teaches The method of claim 1, comprising, as a first and second step: (a) providing a first pair of magnet (Fig. 1a, NMR magnet) configured to establish a magnetic field across a measurement region (Fig 1a; p.229 “ A custom-made medium-wall flow-through NMR sampling tube of 14 cm in length and 10 mm outer diameter was positioned in a micro-imaging probe (Bruker 2.5; Extended Data Fig. 1a). The electrolyte solution flows from the bottom to the top of the tube ”) , (b) providing a flow tube (NMR sampling tube) configured to permit an electrolyte to pass through the measurement region (Fig 1a; p.229 “ A custom-made medium-wall flow-through NMR sampling tube of 14 cm in length and 10 mm outer diameter was positioned in a micro-imaging probe (Bruker 2.5; Extended Data Fig. 1a). The electrolyte solution flows from the bottom to the top of the tube ”). Zhao does not teach the method , comprising: (a) providing a first pair of magnet s configured to establish a magnetic field across a measurement region and wherein the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte is determined by measuring the force exerted on the flow tube. Sherwood teaches an analogous measuring method, comprising: (a) providing a first pair of magnet s configured to establish a magnetic field across a measurement region (p.2 “ Two pairs of magnets are placed at opposite ends of a beam making a balanced system having a magnetic field at each end. ”) and wherein the magnetic susceptibility (Magnetic Susceptibility Balance) of the electrolyte (p.3 “ The fixed sample tube allows susceptibility measurement of solids, liquids and gases. ”) is determined by measuring the force exerted on the flow tube ( p.3 “ Analogue output: Using a flow cell allows a chemical reaction resulting in a change of susceptibility to be monitored dynamically. This allows new applications to be investigated, for example, redox reactions. ”; p.2 “ Introduction of the sample into the magnetic field attempts to deflect the beam and the movement is optically detected. A compensating force is applied by introducing a current through a coil between the other pair of magnets. The current required to maintain the original balance beam position is proportional to the force created by the sample and the direction in which the beam (magnetic field) moves indicates whether the sample is paramagnetic or diamagnetic ”) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to substitute the magnet of Zhao for the pair of magnets for determining the magnetic susceptibility of Sherwood, because the use of magnets for determining magnetic susceptibility is a well-known technique (Sherwood: p.2 “SHERWOOD SCIENTIFIC’S MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY BALANCES are recognised in hundreds of teaching and research laboratories throughout the world. Based on a design by the Late Professor Evans of Imperial College London, they offer a number of significant advantages over traditional methods. The Mk 1 balance adheres closely to Evans’ original design.”) and would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 6, Zhao teaches A measurement device for determining the state of charge (Abstract; p. 233, “The Evans method enables the radical concentration to be determined from the magnetic susceptibility. This affords a straightforward approach to track the SOC of the anolyte and catholyte, providing critical information about cell balancing and how it varies with cycle life.”). The SOC is the state of charge. of an electrolyte (Abstract; Fig. 1; p. 225 “ Figure 2a presents the 1H NMR spectra of DHAQ as a function of electrochemical cycling ”) , the device comprising: (a) a measurement region (Fig. 1a, flow-through apparatus) ; (b) a flow tube configured to permit the electrolyte to pass through the measurement region (Fig. 1a; p. 229 “ A custom-made medium-wall flow-through NMR sampling tube of 14 cm in length and 10 mm outer diameter was positioned in a micro-imaging probe (Bruker 2.5; Extended Data Fig. 1a). The electrolyte solution flows from the bottom to the top of the tube. ”) ; and (c) a detector (p.224 “ In on-line detection (Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 1a), the battery is positioned outside the NMR magnet (300 MHz) and one electrolyte solution is pumped through a flow apparatus in the NMR probe, enabling the study of either the catholyte or the anolyte. ”) configured to measure the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte in the measurement region (p. 225 “The concentration of radicals can be readily estimated from this bulk magnetic-susceptibility shift using the Evans method (Supplementary Information equations S8–S16), a well established NMR method for measuring the magnetic susceptibility of a solution”) . Zhao does not teach the device, wherein the detector is a magnetic susceptibility balance. Sherwood teaches an analogous detector, wherein the detector is a magnetic susceptibility balance ( Magnetic Susceptibility Balance Mk 1 and AUTO ) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhao to include the magnetic susceptibility balance of Sherwood, because it is a known device and would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 7, Zhao in view of Sherwood teaches The device of claim 6, wherein the magnetic susceptibility balance is an Evans-type balance ( Sherwood: p.2 “ Based on a design by the Late Professor Evans of Imperial College London, they offer a number of significant advantages over traditional methods. The Mk 1 balance adheres closely to Evans’ original design. ”) . Regarding claim 8, Zhao in view of Sherwood The device of claim 6, wherein the magnetic susceptibility balance comprises: (a) a first pair of magnets configured to establish a first magnetic field across the measurement region ( Sherwood: p.2 “ Two pairs of magnets are placed at opposite ends of a beam making a balanced system having a magnetic field at each end. ” ) ; and (b) a sensor ( Sherwood: p.2 “ Introduction of the sample into the magnetic field attempts to deflect the beam and the movement is optically detected ”) configured to determine the force exerted on the first pair of magnets ( Sherwood: p.2 “ A compensating force is applied by introducing a current through a coil between the other pair of magnets. The current required to maintain the original balance beam position is proportional to the force created by the sample and the direction in which the beam (magnetic field) moves indicates whether the sample is paramagnetic or diamagnetic ”) . Regarding claim 9, Zhao in view of Sherwood teaches The device of claim 8, wherein the magnetic susceptibility balance further comprises a beam ( Sherwood: beam of Figure, reproduced below) having first and second ends ( Sherwood: p. 2 “ Two pairs of magnets are placed at opposite ends of a beam making a balanced system having a magnetic field at each end. ”) , and wherein: (a) the first pair of magnets are positioned at the first end of the beam ( Sherwood: Figure; p. 2 “ Two pairs of magnets are placed at opposite ends of a beam making a balanced system having a magnetic field at each end. ”) ; and (b) the sensor ( Sherwood: p.2 “ Introduction of the sample into the magnetic field attempts to deflect the beam and the movement is optically detected ”) is configured to measure the force exerted on the beam ( Sherwood: p.2 “ A compensating force is applied by introducing a current through a coil between the other pair of magnets. The current required to maintain the original balance beam position is proportional to the force created by the sample and the direction in which the beam (magnetic field) moves indicates whether the sample is paramagnetic or diamagnetic ”) . Regarding claim 10, Zhao in view of Sherwood teaches The device of claim 9 comprising: (a) a second pair of magnets positioned at the second end of the beam and configured to establish a second magnetic field ( Sherwood: Figure; p. 2 “ Two pairs of magnets are placed at opposite ends of a beam making a balanced system having a magnetic field at each end. ”) ; and (b) a compensating electromagnet configured to generate a compensating magnetic field to interact with the second magnetic field ( Sherwood: p.2 “ A compensating force is applied by introducing a current through a coil between the other pair of magnets. ”) , wherein, the sensor is configured to measure the current supplied to the compensating electromagnet ( Sherwood: p.2 “ The current required to maintain the original balance beam position is proportional to the force created by the sample and the direction in which the beam (magnetic field) moves indicates whether the sample is paramagnetic or diamagnetic ”) . Regarding claim 11, Zhao in view of Sherwood teaches The device of claim 9, comprising a second sensor configured to determine whether the beam is in the rest position ( Sherwood: p. 2 “ Introduction of the sample into the magnetic field attempts to deflect the beam and the movement is optically detected. ”) . The detection of the deflect of the beam is the determining whether the beam is in the rest position. Regarding claim 13, Zhao in view of Sherwood teaches The device of claim 6, wherein the magnetic susceptibility balance is a Gouy -type balance (Sherwood: p. 2 “ The traditional technique, developed by Gouy , employs a conventional balance and a large permanent magnet ”) . Regarding claim 14, Zhao in view of Sherwood teaches The device of claim 6, wherein the magnetic susceptibility balance comprises: (a) a first pair of magnets configured to establish a first magnetic field across the measurement region (Sherwood: p.2 “ Two pairs of magnets are placed at opposite ends of a beam making a balanced system having a magnetic field at each end. ”) ; and (b) a sensor (Sherwood: optical sensor) configured to determine the force exerted on the flow tube (Sherwood: p.3 “ Analogue output: Using a flow cell allows a chemical reaction resulting in a change of susceptibility to be monitored dynamically. This allows new applications to be investigated, for example, redox reactions. ”; p.2 “ Introduction of the sample into the magnetic field attempts to deflect the beam and the movement is optically detected. A compensating force is applied by introducing a current through a coil between the other pair of magnets. The current required to maintain the original balance beam position is proportional to the force created by the sample and the direction in which the beam (magnetic field) moves indicates whether the sample is paramagnetic or diamagnetic ”) . Regarding claim 15, Zhao in view of Sherwood The device of claim 6, wherein the flow tube (Sherwood: Flow cell B of Figure, reproduced below with annotations) comprises: (a) an outer tube (Sherwood: outer tube, indicated by Annotation A ) , coupled to an outlet at a first end (Sherwood: outlet, indicated by Annotation B ) and sealed at a second end (Sherwood: terminated end, indicated by Annotation C) ; and (b) an inner tube positioned within the outer tube (Sherwood: inner tube, indicated by Annotation D) , the inner tube open at a second end (Sherwood: opening, indicated by Annotation E) and coupled to an inlet at a first end (Sherwood: inlet, indicated by Annotation F) , such that the electrolyte must pass from the inlet through the inner tube, into the outer tube and then through the outer tube to the outlet. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the electrolyte must pass from the opening of the inner tube to the inlet, into the outer tube, and through the outlet in sequence. Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Sherwood as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Rahaman et al. ( US 20120316814 A1 ) . Regarding claim 16, Zhao in view of Sherwood teaches The device of claim 6, comprising determine a state of charge of the electrolyte based on the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte (Zhao: p. 225 “The concentration of radicals can be readily estimated from this bulk magnetic-susceptibility shift using the Evans method (Supplementary Information equations S8–S16), a well established NMR method for measuring the magnetic susceptibility of a solution”; p. 224 “As the fraction of radicals is directly related to the comproportionation equilibrium constant Kc (equation (3); see also Supplementary Information equations S1–S7) and the state of charge (SOC), the plot of radical concentration versus the SOC can then be fitted to the analytical expressions of Supplementary Information equations S6 and S7 (see Extended Data Fig. 4 for an in-depth explanation) to extract Kc”) , and determine the correlation between the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte and the state of charge of the electrolyte (Zhao: p.228 “ The in situ NMR technique can be readily used to monitor battery self-discharge. ”; “In summary, we have demonstrated two in situ NMR metrologies to study flow batteries. The formation of radicals and fully reduced anions is directly observed in two AQ-based redox flow battery systems, in which their equilibrium concentrations are governed by the potentials of the two single-electron-transfer redox processes. The radical concentrations as a function of SOC were quantified by analysing the bulk magnetic susceptibility changes, enabling the voltage separation of the two successive reductions to be extracted.”) ; wherein: (a) determine the state of charge of a flow battery comprising the electrolyte based on the state of charge of the electrolyte (Zhao: p. 225 “The concentration of radicals can be readily estimated from this bulk magnetic-susceptibility shift using the Evans method (Supplementary Information equations S8–S16), a well established NMR method for measuring the magnetic susceptibility of a solution”; p. 224 “As the fraction of radicals is directly related to the comproportionation equilibrium constant Kc (equation (3); see also Supplementary Information equations S1–S7) and the state of charge (SOC), the plot of radical concentration versus the SOC can then be fitted to the analytical expressions of Supplementary Information equations S6 and S7 (see Extended Data Fig. 4 for an in-depth explanation) to extract Kc”) ; and (b) determine store the correlation between the state of charge of the flow battery and the state of charge of the electrolyte (Zhao: p.228 “ The in situ NMR technique can be readily used to monitor battery self-discharge. ”; “In summary, we have demonstrated two in situ NMR metrologies to study flow batteries. The formation of radicals and fully reduced anions is directly observed in two AQ-based redox flow battery systems, in which their equilibrium concentrations are governed by the potentials of the two single-electron-transfer redox processes. The radical concentrations as a function of SOC were quantified by analysing the bulk magnetic susceptibility changes, enabling the voltage separation of the two successive reductions to be extracted.”) . Zhao in view of Sherwood does not teach a data processing unit configured to determine a state of charge ; and a data storage unit for storing the correlation between the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte and the state of charge . Rahaman teaches an analogous device for determining the state of charge of a battery (Abstract), comprising: a data processing unit (Fig. 3, processing device 60) configured to determine a state of charge ( [0052] lines , “ A processing device 60 calculates the magnetic susceptibility, and thereby the state of charge of the battery cell 20, each of which is linearly related to the output of the sensing device 30. ” ) ; and a data storage unit (Fig. 3 storage device 90) for storing the correlation between the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte and the state of charge (Fig. 5) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhao in view of Sherwood to include the data processing unit and data storage unit of Rahaman because the use of generic computer (i.e. processing unit and data storage unit) is a well known technique and would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 20, Zhao in view of Sherwood teaches The device of claim 6, wherein the device is integrated into a flow battery (Zhao: p.224 “ The setup requires minimum modification of a laboratory-scale flow battery and can be easily adapted to other solution NMR instruments and coupled with other analytical (flow) characterization methods ”) or hybrid flow battery . Even if Zhao in view of Sherwood does not explicitly teach the device is integrated into a flow battery , i t would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the device integrated since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v: Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. a64 (1893). Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Rahaman . Regarding claim 26, Zhao teaches A method for detecting cross-over or degradation occurring within a flow battery (p.224 “ methods such as in situ optical spectrophotometry6 and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR)7 have been used to study, for example, crossover of quinones and vanadyl ions, but considerable opportunities remain to improve characterization methods to address limitations inherent to each method and to probe different phenomena. NMR spectroscopy has previously been used to study benzoquinone and polyoxometalate redox reactions in an in situ static electrochemical cell8 – 10. Here we proceed a step further by using NMR to study species in flow via two different methods: probing the electrolyte in the flow path (on-line detection), or in the battery cell (operando detection). ”; p.233 “ the on-line technique can be exploited to study the rate of electrolyte crossover, which would help improve membrane design. ”) , the method comprising: (a) flowing an electrolyte through a measurement region (Fig. 1; p. 224 “ In on-line detection (Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 1a), the battery is positioned outside the NMR magnet (300 MHz) and one electrolyte solution is pumped through a flow apparatus in the NMR probe, enabling the study of either the catholyte or the anolyte. ”) ; (b) measuring the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte in the measurement region (p. 225 “The concentration of radicals can be readily estimated from this bulk magnetic-susceptibility shift using the Evans method (Supplementary Information equations S8–S16), a well established NMR method for measuring the magnetic susceptibility of a solution”) ; and (d) determining the presence of by-product species within the electrolyte (Fig. 4; p.227 “ The in situ NMR approach enables us to follow electrolyte decomposition under specific cycling conditions. ”) . Zhao does not teach the method, comprising: (c) comparing the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte to a predetermined reference Rahaman teaches an analogous method for detecting degradation of a battery (Abstract; [0059] lines 10-23, “ Because the X symbol does not lie along the . chi.. sub.0 line representing the original state of health of the battery cell 20, it can be inferred that the state of health of the battery cell 20 has degraded in the period between the 0th and the nth charge/discharge cycles. The vertical difference between the X and the O symbols represents the difference in magnetic susceptibility that is due to the change in the state of health of the battery cell 20. The determination of the state of health of the battery cell based on the calculated value of . chi.. sub.DIFF , described above, is equivalent to converting the vertical difference between the X and O symbols into a value indicating the amount of change in state of health of the battery cell 20. ”), comprising: (c) comparing the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte to a predetermined reference (Fig. 7; [0058] lines 8-14 , “ an expected magnetic susceptibility value . chi.. sub.BEST , corresponding to that state of charge value, is calculated. . chi.. sub.BEST is the best estimate of the magnetic susceptibility based on the best estimate of the state of charge, where the present magnetic signal, the voltage history, and the current history have been used to determine the best estimate of the state of charge ”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhao to include the comparison of magnetic susceptibility to a predetermined reference because it would yield predictable results, such as identifying that the magnetic susceptibility of the electrolyte has changed from a previous or ideal value. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN GEISS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1248 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Catherine Rastovski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-0349 . 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. /B.B.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857