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 .
This is the initial office action for US Patent Application No. 18/316977, which is a continuation of US Patent Application No. 17/308862, now US Patent No. 11,710,843.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brantley et al. (US 2016/0079624 A1), herein referred to as Brantley, provided in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed 5/12/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Brantley teaches (Claims 1 and 17-19, Figure 11) a flow cell battery system comprised of a cell stack assembly interposed by two endplates (Figure 11, features 1120 and 1124).
Brantley proceeds to teach a plurality of flow-field plates including bipolar plates (bipolar plate assembly) and one or more membranes (membrane frame assembly) are formed to fit within a depression (bipolar frame assembly mated directly to membrane frame assembly) in a corresponding one of the plurality of flow-field plates. Furthermore, each of the one or more membranes is arranged such that the first flow field of one of the plurality of flow-field plates direct a first electrolyte across a first surface of membrane and the second flow field of an adjacent one of the plurality of flow-field plates directs a second electrolyte across a second surface of the membrane (spaces between the bipolar frame assembly and the membrane frame assembly).
Brantley further teaches the plurality of flow-field plates include first electrolyte channels formed in the plate to direct a first electrolyte to a first flow field and second electrolyte channels formed in the plate to direct a second electrolyte to a second flow field. The bipolar plates are formed to fit within the depression in corresponding ones of the plurality of flow-field plates such that each of the one or more membranes is between bipolar plates.
Regarding claim 2, Brantley teaches [0046] the flow-field plates can include a large gasket, a membrane and a bipolar plate. Therefore flow-field plate functions as a bipolar frame plate to support the bipolar plate.
Regarding claim 3, Brantley teaches (Figure 3 and [0048]) the bipolar plate can include inlet distribution channels 302 configured to diverge in a direction extending toward the bipolar plate and outlet distribution channels 322 configured to diverge in a direction away from the bipolar plate.
Regarding claim 7, Brantley teaches (Figure 5) the bipolar plate can include inlet distribution channels 302, 420 and outlet distribution channels 322, 442 wherein the inlet distribution channels and outlet distribution channels offset from one another along an x-axis.
Regarding claim 16, Brantley teaches (Claims 1 and 17-19, Figure 11) a flow cell battery system comprised of a cell stack assembly interposed by two endplates (Figure 11, features 1120 and 1124). Brantley proceeds to teach a plurality of flow-field plates including bipolar plates (bipolar plate assembly) and one or more membranes (membrane frame assembly) are formed to fit within a depression (bipolar frame assembly mated directly to membrane frame assembly) in a corresponding one of the plurality of flow-field plates. In Figures 8B and 8C, Brantley further teaches [0060] the flow-field plates include channels 820 with bosses 824 (groove that forms a shunt channel) that are able to direct electrolyte flow to outlet distribution channels.
Regarding claims 17-19, Brantley teaches (Figures 8B and 8C) the cell stack assembly including an electrolyte inlet 302 positioned between the mated bipolar frame plate and membrane frame plate, the electrolyte inlet 302 can be positioned below the channels 820 with bosses 824 (shunt channels) and the channels with bosses can be configured to have a serpentine shape.
Regarding claim 20, Brantley teaches [0009 and 0044] the bipolar frame plate and the membrane frame plate are a monolithic structure (bipolar frame assembly mated directly to membrane frame assembly) and the shunt channel is formed during molding of the monolithic structure (flow-field plate comprising the bipolar assembly and membrane frame plate being moldable).
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.
Claims 8, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brantley et al. (US 2016/0079624 A1), herein referred to as Brantley, in view of Buck et al. (US 2010/0273042 A1), herein referred to as Buck, both references provided in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed 5/12/2023.
Regarding claim 8, Brantley teaches (Claims 1 and 17-19, Figure 11) a flow cell battery system (redox flow battery) comprised of a cell stack assembly interposed by two endplates (Figure 11, features 1120 and 1124).
Brantley proceeds to teach a plurality of flow-field plates including bipolar plates (bipolar plate assembly) and one or more membranes (membrane frame assembly) are formed to fit within a depression (mated directly to frame plates) in a corresponding one of the plurality of flow-field plates. Furthermore, each of the one or more membranes is arranged such that the first flow field of one of the plurality of flow-field plates direct a first electrolyte across a first surface of membrane and the second flow field of an adjacent one of the plurality of flow-field plates directs a second electrolyte across a second surface of the membrane (spaces between the bipolar frame assembly and the membrane frame assembly).
Brantley further teaches the plurality of flow-field plates include first electrolyte channels formed in the plate to direct a first electrolyte to a first flow field and second electrolyte channels formed in the plate to direct a second electrolyte to a second flow field. The bipolar plates are formed to fit within the depression in corresponding ones of the plurality of flow-field plates such that each of the one or more membranes is between bipolar plates.
Brantley does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 8 of the bipolar frame plates including a first side with a tongue and a second side with groove for forming a mated interface with respective bipolar frame plates.
However, from the same field of technology, Buck discloses a battery assembly comprised of a pair of frames. In view of claim 8, Buck teaches (Claim 9) a pair of frames that include a plurality of male connectors (tongues) extending from each of the frames and a plurality of female connectors (groove).
At the time of the effective filing date of the application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flow cell battery system taught by Brantley to include the teachings of Buck directed to forming male and female connectors in the pair of frames because these are well known connective features that are used for securing frame plates.
In view of claim 13, the combination of Brantley and Buck teaches (Brantley, Figures 3 and 4 and Buck [0038]) the mated interface includes gaps between vertical sides of the tongue of each of the plurality of bipolar frame plates and vertical sides of the groove of each of the plurality of membrane frame plates, and gaps between vertical sides of the tongue of each of the plurality of membrane frame plates and vertical sides of the groove of each of the plurality of bipolar frame plates.
In view of claim 15, the combination of Brantley and Buck teaches (Brantley [0048-0049], Figures 3 and 4) the mated interface of the bipolar plate assembly and membrane frame assembly demarcates electrolyte flow paths.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brantley et al. (US 2016/0079624 A1), herein referred to as Brantley, in view of Ishioka et al. (US 2007/0031719 A1), herein referred to as Ishioka, both references provided in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed 5/12/2023.
Brantley teaches a flow cell battery system as discussed above. Brantley however does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 4-6. However, from the same field of technology, Ishioka discloses a separator configuration for a membrane electrode assembly.
In view of claim 4, Ishioka teaches (Claim 1, Figure 7) a membrane electrode assembly including a fuel electrode and an oxidant electrode disposed on either side of a solid polymer electrolyte membrane, a first separator superposed against a surface of the oxidant electrode forming an oxidant gas flow passage and a second separator superposed against a surface of the fuel electrode forming a fuel gas flow passage. Ishioka further teaches [0084] the first separator and the second separator are composed of rectangular thin metal plates, with outer peripheral edges of the first separator and the second separator each bending inclined towards a secondary face thereof on an opposite side of a primary face thereof that is superposed against the membrane/electrode assembly, thereby integrally forming a reinforcing rib.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flow cell battery system taught by Brantley to include the teachings of Ishioka for forming a reinforcing rib in order to better secure the bipolar plates and membranes within the battery system and to reduce the impact of external forces on the battery system during operation.
In view of claim 5, the combination of Brantley and Ishioka teaches (Brantley [0010]) carbon felts being positioned between the bipolar plates and membrane which can be stamped to form detents configured to mate with reinforcing ribs.
In view of claim 6, the combination of Brantley and Ishioka teaches (Brantley [0063]) an array of bolts arranged around the periphery of the bipolar plate and membrane frame assemblies to compress and secure the cell stack assembly.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brantley et al. (US 2016/0079624), herein referred to as Brantley, provided in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed 5/12/2023, in view of Evans et al. (US 2018/0233834 A1), herein referred to as Evans.
Brantley teaches a flow cell battery system as discussed above. Brantley however does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 9-12. However, from the same field of technology, Evans discloses a leaf spring compression system for securing a battery cell stack of a flow battery system.
In view of claim 9, the combination of Brantley and Evans teaches (Evans [0021-0023], Figure 4A) the cell stack assembly is positioned between a first pressure plate and a second pressure plate positioned on either side of the cell stack assembly and a spring extending along outer sides of the first pressure plate and the second pressure plate.
In view of claim 10, the combination of Brantley and Evans teaches (Evans [0021-0023], Figure 4A) the redox flow battery further includes a plurality of tie rods configured to extend through the spring of the first pressure plate, the second pressure plate, and the cell stack assembly.
In view of claim 11, the combination of Brantley and Evans teaches (Evans [0021]) the springs that are used are leaf springs.
In view of claim 12, the combination of Brantley and Evans teaches (Evans [0023]) the plurality of tie rods include tie rods configured to extend through the first pressure plate, the second pressure plate and the cell stack assembly, and tie rods configured to extend through the first pressure plate and the second pressure plate and not through the cell stack assembly.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flow cell battery system taught by Brantley to include the teachings of Evans for forming battery cell stack compression system in order to better secure the bipolar plates and membranes within the battery system and to reduce the impact of external forces on the battery system during operation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brantley et al. (US 2016/0079624 A1), herein referred to as Brantley, in view of Buck et al. (US 2010/0273042 A1), herein referred to as Buck, both references provided in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed 5/12/2023, as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0151894 A1), herein referred to as Kim.
The combination of Brantley and Buck teaches a flow cell battery system as discussed above. The combination of Brantley and Buck however does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 14. However, from the same field of technology, Kim discloses a redox flow battery system.
In view of claim 14, the combination of Brantley, Evans and Kim teaches (Kim [0087) attaching flow path frames (gaps) to a membrane frame by an adhesive.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flow cell battery system taught by Brantley and Evans to further include the teachings of Kim in order to better secure the bipolar plates and membranes within the battery system and to reduce the impact of external forces on the battery system during operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, EST.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724