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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 14-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazacos US20030143456A1 (cited in office action mailed 24 April 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Kazacos discloses an electrolyte solution (Kazacos, [0014]), wherein the electrolyte solution comprises:
a positive electrode electrolyte solution and a negative electrode electrolyte solution (Kazacos, [0014]), the positive electrode electrolyte solution and the negative electrode electrolyte solution comprise chloride ions, sulfate ions and vanadium ions (Kazacos, [0163-0164]),
both the positive electrode electrolyte solution and the negative electrode electrolyte solution satisfy:
1.6 mol/L ≤c(V n+)≤ 2.0 mol/L (Kazacos, [0064-0065], above 1.8M), the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at 1.8 to 2 mol/L, see MPEP § 2144.05,
3.9 mol/L ≤c(Cl-)≤ 5.3 mol/L (Kazacos, [0164], VO(Cl)2, 3.601 to 30M, dissociates into VO2+ and 2Cl- ions), the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at 3.9 to 5.3 mol/L, the examiner notes that while 30M is higher, there has been found no criticality to the range over the prior art (see examiner’s response for more details),
1.9 mol/L ≤c(SO42-)≤ 2.1 mol/L (Kazacos, [0163], 1.5 to 10M) the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at 1.9 to 2.1 mol/L, see MPEP § 2144.05, and
wherein the c(Cl-) represents a concentration of the chloride ions, the c(SO42-) represents a concentration of the sulfate ions, and the c(V n+) represents a concentration of the vanadium ions (Kazacos, [0163-0164]) satisfying:
2.9 ≤[c(Cl-)+c(SO42-)]/c(V n+)≤ 3.6,
1.95 ≤c(Cl-)/c(V n+)≤ 2.65,
2.05 ≤c(Cl-)/c(SO42-)≤ 2.78, and
the positive electrolyte further comprises an additive, and the positive electrode electrolyte solution further satisfies 0.02 M ≤c(A)≤ 0.2 mol/L (Kazacos, [0220], Vial No. 105 and 125, Table B*, %wt/vol from 0.01 to 30 corresponding to 0.001 to 3.3M for glycerol and 0.0008 – 2.5M for succinic acid), the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at 0.02 to 0.2 mol/L, the examiner notes that while 0.0008 and 0.001 are lower and 2.5 and 3.3M are higher, there has been found no criticality to the range over the prior art (see examiner’s response for more details),
wherein the c(A) represents a concentration of the additive, and the additive is glycerol or succinic acid (Kazacos, Vial No. 105 and 125), satisfying:
2.91 ≤[c(Cl-)+c(SO42-)+c(A)]/c(V n+)≤ 3.7.
It is the examiner’s position that the electrolyte solution as taught by Kazacos encompasses the claimed ranges and structural limitations, as set forth above and would therefore be understood by the skilled artisan to inherently satisfy the claim limitation wherein a temperature stability range of the electrolyte solution is of -15 to 60°C, and wherein the negative electrolyte solution is stable for at least 7 days at an ambient temperature of -15°C, and the positive electrode electrolyte solution is stable for at least 10 days at an ambient temperature of 60°C. See MPEP § 2144.05 and 2112.
Regarding claim 14, Kazacos additionally discloses wherein the negative electrode electrolyte solution further comprises the additive (Kazacos, [0096]), and the negative electrode electrolyte solution further satisfies 2.91 ≤[c(Cl-)+c(SO42-)+c(A)]/c(V n+)≤ 3.7, wherein the c(A) represents a concentration of the additive (Kazacos, [0220], Vial No. 105 and 125, Table B*, %wt/vol from 0.01 to 30 corresponding to 0.001 to 3.3M for glycerol and 0.0008 – 2.5M for succinic acid).
Regarding claim 15, Kazacos also discloses wherein the concentration of the assistive c(A) satisfies: 0.02 M ≤c(A)≤ 0.2 mol/L (Kazacos, [0220], Vial No. 105 and 125, Table B*, %wt/vol from 0.01 to 30 corresponding to 0.001 to 3.3M for glycerol and 0.0008 – 2.5M for succinic acid), the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at 0.02 to 0.2 mol/L, the examiner notes that while 0.0008 and 0.001 are lower and 2.5 and 3.3M are higher, there has been found no criticality to the range over the prior art (see examiner’s response for more details).
Regarding claim 17, Kazacos further discloses wherein the chloride ions are provided by a salt containing the chloride ions (Kazacos, [0164], VO(Cl)2), the sulfate ions are provided by an acid or salt containing the sulfate (Kazacos, [0163]), the vanadium ions are provided by a vanadate (Kazacos, [0142]).
Regarding claim 18, Kazacos discloses an all-vanadium redox flow battery (Kazacos, [0014]), wherein the all-vanadium redox flow battery comprises an electrolyte solution (Kazacos, [0014]), wherein the electrolyte solution comprises:
a positive electrode electrolyte solution and a negative electrode electrolyte solution (Kazacos, [0014]), the positive electrode electrolyte solution and the negative electrode electrolyte solution comprise chloride ions, sulfate ions and vanadium ions (Kazacos, [0163-0164]),
both the positive electrode electrolyte solution and the negative electrode electrolyte solution satisfy:
1.6 mol/L ≤c(V n+)≤ 2.0 mol/L (Kazacos, [0064-0065], above 1.8M), the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at 1.8 to 2 mol/L, see MPEP § 2144.05,
3.9 mol/L ≤c(Cl-)≤ 5.3 mol/L (Kazacos, [0164], VO(Cl)2, 3.601 to 30M, dissociates into VO2+ and 2Cl- ions), the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at 3.9 to 5.3 mol/L, the examiner notes that while 30M is higher, there has been found no criticality to the range over the prior art (see examiner’s response for more details),
1.9 mol/L ≤c(SO42-)≤ 2.1 mol/L (Kazacos, [0163], 1.5 to 10M) the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at 1.9 to 2.1 mol/L, see MPEP § 2144.05, and
wherein the c(Cl-) represents a concentration of the chloride ions, the c(SO42-) represents a concentration of the sulfate ions, and the c(V n+) represents a concentration of the vanadium ions (Kazacos, [0163-0164]) satisfying:
2.9 ≤[c(Cl-)+c(SO42-)]/c(V n+)≤ 3.6,
1.95 ≤c(Cl-)/c(V n+)≤ 2.65,
2.05 ≤c(Cl-)/c(SO42-)≤ 2.78, and
the positive electrolyte further comprises an additive, and the positive electrode electrolyte solution further satisfies 0.02 M ≤c(A)≤ 0.2 mol/L (Kazacos, [0220], Vial No. 105 and 125, Table B*, %wt/vol from 0.01 to 30 corresponding to 0.001 to 3.3M for glycerol and 0.0008 – 2.5M for succinic acid), the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at 0.02 to 0.2 mol/L, the examiner notes that while 0.0008 and 0.001 are lower and 2.5 and 3.3M are higher, there has been found no criticality to the range over the prior art (see examiner’s response for more details),
wherein the c(A) represents a concentration of the additive, and the additive is glycerol or succinic acid (Kazacos, Vial No. 105 and 125), satisfying:
2.91 ≤[c(Cl-)+c(SO42-)+c(A)]/c(V n+)≤ 3.7.
It is the examiner’s position that the electrolyte solution as taught by Kazacos encompasses the claimed ranges and structural limitations, as set forth above and would therefore be understood by the skilled artisan to inherently satisfy the claim limitation wherein a temperature stability range of the electrolyte solution is of -15 to 60°C, and wherein the negative electrolyte solution is stable for at least 7 days at an ambient temperature of -15°C, and the positive electrode electrolyte solution is stable for at least 10 days at an ambient temperature of 60°C. See MPEP § 2144.05 and 2112.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes that while applicant has argued unexpected results, the results for examples 28-29, which fall within the claimed range, appear to show values that lie between the values of the other examples in a completely expected manner (e.g., in a linear or parabolic manner).
Additionally, Kazacos discloses the additive may also reduce or prevent precipitation of redox species from the redox electrolyte solution (Kazacos, [0016]), such as chlorine gas, and allows the skilled artisan to optimize the ion concentrations in the electrolyte solution(s) thereby obtaining the result of enhancing the thermal stability (Kazacos, [0023]) for both higher (Kazacos, [0019], [0021], [0023]) and lower temperatures (Kazacos, [0008], [0019], [0021]). "Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof." In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ602, 604 (CCPA 1967).
Further, applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of the claimed ranges with sufficient examples within the entire as well as examples outside the bounds of the claimed ranges. Rather the examples, looking at the additive alone as exemplary of the other concentrations and ratios, are at either the upper bound (0.2 mol/L), the lower bound (0.02 mol/L), or no additive. The Courts have held that unexpected results for a claimed range as compared with the range disclosed in the prior art had been shown by a demonstration of "a marked improvement, over the results achieved under other ratios, as to be classified as a difference in kind, rather than one of degree." Evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Further the Courts have held that to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP § 716.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li US20120077067A1 (discloses an all-vanadium redox flow battery comprising similar concentrations to the claimed invention).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723