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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on Application 18/396,426 filed 12/26/2023 by Dong Young Lee and Bu Gi Kim.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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 4-5 are 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.
The term “relatively dramatic” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively dramatic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim does not make it clear what would constitute “relatively dramatic” as claimed. Since the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be ascertained, the claims are taken to be indefinite.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 12-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by ITO (US 2023/0268533 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 12. ITO teaches a redox flow battery system that includes a battery cell that performs a charge-discharge (abstract). There is a controller that controls the charge-discharge of the battery cell based on the open circuit voltage, and corrects the voltage in accordance with the temperature (abstract). There is a correlation between the open circuit voltage and the SOC of the electrolyte (paragraph 0027). When the OCV exceeds an upper limit, the cell is in an overcharge state, and when it is below a lower limit it is in an overdischarge state (paragraph 0027). The charge-discharge is performed by a controller (paragraph 0085). The system is performed under the OCV limited range which is the range in which the charge and discharge is performed (paragraph 0086). This limited range is a preset range in which the electrolyte is not overcharged or overdischarged at a reference temperature (paragraph 0086). The reference temperature is 25 degrees C (paragraph 0086). This reference temperature is taken to be the claimed standard condition.
With respect to claims 2 and 13. ITO teaches measuring the OCV to maintain the SOC of the electrolyte (paragraph 0038).
With respect to claims 3 and 14. ITO teaches maintaining the voltage within a specific range to in accordance to the charging and discharging (paragraph 0086).
With respect to claims 5 and 16. ITO teaches the voltage range is set according to the SOC of the battery, as there is a correlation between the OCV and the SOC (paragraph 0027).
With respect to claims 6 and 17. ITO teaches the low end range of 1.33 V, which is about 1.3V, and a high end voltage of 1.60 V (paragraph 0117).
With respect to claims 7 and 18. ITO teaches a voltmeter which measures the OCV, which can be used to obtain the SOC (paragraph 0077). The reference temperature is 25 degrees C (paragraph 0086).
With respect to claim 19. ITO teaches obtaining the OCV, and then calculating the SOC (paragraph 0027).
With respect to claim 20. ITO teaches the RF battery system 1 which includes the measurement element as well as the cell 10 (paragraph 0051-0055).
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO (US 2023/0268533 A1) in view of KIM (US 2019/0020045 A1).
The rejection of Claim 1 in view of ITO from above is repeated here. ITO then further teaches the redox flow battery system may include vanadium ions (paragraph 0042). However, ITO does not explicitly teach obtaining the voltage window takes into account voltage window which takes into account changes due to the amount of current.
KIM teaches a redox flow battery and method of measuring the SOC (abstract). There is included a current measurement unit which is configured to measure a current which is produced during the operation of charging and discharging of the redox flow battery (paragraph 0037). The controller then includes the SOC correction unit and charge measurement unit, so that the SOC is the same value as measured based on an OCV, and calculates the amount of electricity based on current data (paragraph 0038).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to take into account the amount of current during charging or discharging as taught by KIM for the measurement of ITO, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
With respect to claim 10. ITO teaches the OCV range is based on the reference temperature (paragraph 0086).
With respect to claim 11. ITO teaches the high end and low end voltages (paragraph 0117) but does not teach the voltages are set upon a relationship between the OCV and resistance, and the voltages are at the resistance values that change in a relatively dramatic manner during charge or discharge of the redox battery.
ITO though teaches when the electrolyte is overcharged the electrolyte is electrolyzed in the battery cell to generate gas (paragraph 0023). Therefore these OCV low end and high end voltages are related to when the electrolyte undergoes a change, such as the generation of a gas, which is taken to result in a change in a resistance value.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have the voltage ranges be related to the overdischarge and overcharge state which results in a dramatic change in resistance, due to the generation of gas for examples.
Claim(s) 4, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO (US 2023/0268533 A1).
Claim 4 is dependent upon claim 1 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of ITO. ITO teaches the high end and low end voltages (paragraph 0117) but does not teach the voltages are set upon a relationship between the OCV and resistance, and the voltages are at the resistance values that change in a relatively dramatic manner during charge or discharge of the redox battery.
ITO though teaches when the electrolyte is overcharged the electrolyte is electrolyzed in the battery cell to generate gas (paragraph 0023). Therefore these OCV low end and high end voltages are related to when the electrolyte undergoes a change, such as the generation of a gas, which is taken to result in a change in a resistance value.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have the voltage ranges be related to the overdischarge and overcharge state which results in a dramatic change in resistance, due to the generation of gas for examples.
With respect to claim 8. ITO teaches the correlation between the OCV and the SOC (paragraph 0027).
Claim 15 is dependent upon claim 12 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of ITO. ITO teaches the high end and low end voltages (paragraph 0117) but does not teach the voltages are set upon a relationship between the OCV and resistance, and the voltages are at the resistance values that change in a relatively dramatic manner during charge or discharge of the redox battery.
ITO though teaches when the electrolyte is overcharged the electrolyte is electrolyzed in the battery cell to generate gas (paragraph 0023). Therefore these OCV low end and high end voltages are related to when the electrolyte undergoes a change, such as the generation of a gas, which is taken to result in a change in a resistance value.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have the voltage ranges be related to the overdischarge and overcharge state which results in a dramatic change in resistance, due to the generation of gas for examples.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights