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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 4/5/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has identifies Species B as Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 10. Claims 6 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 10 are under examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 103 and 104. Drawing elements 103 and 104 are shown in Figs. 1-3, but do not have a corresponding description in the specification. Applicant should amend the specification to include descriptions of 103 and 104, or amend the drawings by removing 103 and 104. If Applicant chooses to amend the drawings, element numbers 103 and 104 should be deleted, but the corresponding graphics may remain (see suggested amendment to Figs. 1-3):
PNG
media_image1.png
230
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification
to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schädlich et al., WO 2018114012 A1, and further in view of Liu et al., “No-mixing design of vanadium redox flow battery for enhanced effective energy capacity,” Journal of Energy Storage, 23, 2019, pg. 278–291.
Regarding Claim 1, Schädlich discloses a salt cavern flow battery system ([0006-0014, 0031], Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a stack, comprising a positive electrode of the stack and a negative electrode of the stack (a flow battery with a galvanic cell 8 comprising cathode half-cell 10 and anode half-cell 11 [0009, 0036]);
a salt cavern, comprising a positive salt cavern for storing positive electrolyte (first cavern 1 and catholyte 6 [0008, 0036-0038]), and a negative salt cavern for storing negative electrolyte (second cavern 2 and anolyte 7 [0008, 0036-0038]);
a first closed loop formed by connecting the positive electrode of the stack and the positive salt cavern through a pipeline (first pipe system 12: supply line 20 and return line 21 connected to first cavern 1 and cathode half-cell 10 [0039, 0056-0057]);
a second closed loop formed by connecting the negative electrode of the stack and the negative salt cavern through a pipeline (second pipe system 13: supply line 27 and return line 28 connected to second cavern 2 and anode half-cell 11 [0039, 0047, 0056-0057]);
a first pusher arranged in the first closed loop to push the positive electrolytes to flow cyclically in the first closed loop (first pump 14 and protective medium [0013, 0024, 0040, 0046]); and
a second pusher arranged in the second closed loop to push the negative electrolytes to flow cyclically in the second closed loop (second pump 15 and protective medium [0013, 0024, 0040, 0047]).
PNG
media_image2.png
474
832
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Schädlich – Fig. 2
Schädlich does not disclose two or more positive salt caverns are connected in series through a pipeline, and also does not disclose two or more negative salt caverns are connected in series through a pipeline. However, these limitations are taught by Liu et al.
Liu teaches a redox flow battery system with four electrolyte tanks is preferable to a system only comprising two electrolyte tanks (pg. 279). Liu teaches by separately storing the charged and discharged electrolytes for the positive and negative electrodes, the electrolyte utilization and energy capacity of the battery is increased, which also reduces operating costs (pg. 289). Liu teaches each pair of electrolyte tanks are connected in series (pg. 281, see Tanks 1-4 in Figs. 1B and 2).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a second electrolyte storage tank to the catholyte and anolyte loops, in the flow battery of Schädlich, as Liu teaches separately storing the charged and discharged electrolytes for increases electrolyte utilization and energy capacity, as well as decreases operating costs of the cell.
PNG
media_image3.png
678
1108
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Liu – Fig. 1B
Regarding Claim 2, modified Schädlich discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Schädlich discloses the first pusher and the second pusher each comprise:
a circulation pump arranged in the pipeline (Schädlich, two circuits in which the respective electrolyte solution is circulated by means of at least one pump [0013, 0040]; see pumps 14 and 15 in Schädlich Figs. 1-2), and
an isolation medium arranged in the salt cavern (Schädlich, to adjust the volume of the electrolyte solution, the caverns are preferably filled with a gaseous protective medium, preferably nitrogen gas [0024-0025, 0057]; see protective gases 36/37 in Schädlich Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Schädlich discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Schädlich discloses a density of the isolation medium is lower than that of the positive electrolyte and the negative electrolyte (Schädlich, protective medium is “above the respective electrolyte solution,” electrolyte is “covered with a nitrogen cushion” [0024-0025, 0057]; see position of protective gases 36/37 relative to electrolytes 6/7 in Schädlich Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Schädlich discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Schädlich discloses the isolation medium comprises one or more of nitrogen and oil (Schädlich, protective medium is preferably nitrogen gas, forms a “nitrogen cushion” [0024-0025]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Schädlich discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Schädlich discloses the positive electrolytes comprise a positive active substance and a sodium chloride supporting electrolyte (Schädlich, first electrolyte solution 6 comprises redox-active polymers, sodium chloride, water [0011-0017, 0037-0039]), and the negative electrolytes comprise a negative active substance and the sodium chloride supporting electrolyte (Schädlich, second electrolyte solution 7 comprises redox-active polymers, sodium chloride, water [0011-0017, 0037-0039]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Schädlich discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Schädlich discloses the pipeline is made of corrosion-resistant materials (Schädlich, plastic tube or internally coated steel tube [0023, 0043-0046]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Schädlich discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Schädlich discloses the salt cavern flow battery system is connected with a power supply device for providing electric energy to the salt cavern flow battery system (Schädlich, external current flow of electrons are supplied to the ion exchange membrane via a power grid [0003, 0016]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Schädlich as applied to Claim 1 above, or in the alternative, modified Schädlich further in view of Liu et al., “Comprehensive feasibility study of two-well-horizontal caverns for natural gas storage in thinly-bedded salt rocks in
China,” Energy, 143, 2018, pg. 1006-1019.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Schädlich discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Schädlich discloses each salt cavern is communicated to the ground by setting two wells (Schädlich, supply and return lines to each cavern are separate boreholes [0023, 0030, 0056-0057]), wherein the wells for each salt cavern comprise a vertical well and an inclined well (see Annotated Schädlich Fig. 2 and boreholes 16, 23, 30, 31 [0056-0057]):
PNG
media_image4.png
672
1130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Schädlich – Annotated Fig. 2
Should modified Schädlich not disclose the limitations of Claim 7 with sufficient specificity, the following rejection also applies: Liu teaches a single-well-vertical (“SWV”) and a two-well horizontal (“TWH”) and design for underground salt cavern storage (Abstract, pg. 1006-1008). Liu teaches the TWH-cavern, which comprises a vertical well and an inclined well, has several distinct advantages over the SWV-cavern design, such as higher adoptability to thinly-bedded salt rocks, faster rate for cavern construction, higher flexibility for operation, lower stock of cushion gas, and efficiencies from reusing previously-established TWH caverns from salt mining (pg. 1008, Table 3).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to have each salt cavern be communicated to the ground by a vertical well and an inclined well, in each salt cavern of modified Schädlich, as Liu teaches this configuration offers improved adoptability to thinly-bedded salt rocks, faster rate for cavern construction, higher flexibility for operation, lower stock of cushion gas, and efficiencies from reusing previously-established TWH caverns from salt mining.
PNG
media_image5.png
324
976
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Liu – Table 3
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in this action is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Guodong et al., “Feasibility analysis of using salt caverns for storage of redox flow batteries,” IOP Conf. Series: Earth Environ. Sci., 570, 2020, 062020. Guodong teaches salt caverns for electrolyte storage in a redox flow battery (Abstract, Fig. 2):
PNG
media_image6.png
214
578
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Guodong – Fig. 2
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights