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 13 February 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by
the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, and 15, drawn to a redox flow battery, classified in H01M 8/188.
II. Claims 10-14, drawn to a method for manufacturing a redox flow battery, classified in H01M 8/0273.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by a materially different process. The plurality of patterned films or thin plates forming the flow frames and bipolar plate frames of the product can be made with, for example, with engraving machines, numerical control work, computer numerical control, or the like.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Hyuk Jung Kwon on 3 September 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-9, and 15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-14 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 6-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (KR 102352369, hereinafter, Jin).
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches a redox flow battery including a plurality of unit cells, the unit cells including a first electrode and a second electrode seated on the flow frame, a membrane between the electrodes, bipolar plates between the plurality of unit cells, a pair of end plates on the outermost side of the cells, and current collectors provided inside the pair of end plates (Jin Description of Embodiments ¶ 22 -23), wherein the flow frames are a combination of a plurality of films or thin plate shapes and include a first cover film, second cover film, and at least one channel film provided between the cover films (Jin Description of Embodiments ¶ 7, 36 - 38), wherein the flow frame has components with various structures such as a shape in which a flow path is formed, through holes, and the flow path film is provided with a through-type pattern for forming a flow passage portion (Jin Description of Embodiments ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 2, Jin teaches the redox flow battery of claim 1, wherein the flow frame is a plurality of film or thin plate materials and at least one of the plurality of film or thin plate material has openings in which the first electrode or the second electrode are seated and at least one through hole which an electrolyte solution flows in and out of may be formed. In addition, at least one film or thin plate constituting the flow frame has a flow path formed in a pattern that is bent and bent while extending from one region of the upper and lower ends of the opening (¶ Jin Description of Embodiments ¶ 31).
Regarding claim 3, Jin teaches the redox flow battery of claim 1, wherein an adhesive or adhesive film may be interposed between the laminated films or thin plates (Jin Description of Embodiments ¶ 15).
Regarding claim 6, Jin teaches the redox flow battery of claim 1, wherein the flow frame may include a first flow frame on which the first electrode is seated and a second flow frame on which the second electrode is seated, and that the thicknesses of the first flow frame and second flow frame may be different from each other when the thicknesses of the first electrode and second electrode are different (Jin Description of Embodiments ¶ 32).
Regarding claim 7, Jin teaches the redox flow battery of claim 1, further comprising bipolar plate frames for fixing the bipolar plates, wherein the bipolar plate frame may have a form in which a plurality of films or thin plates are laminated (Jin Description of Embodiments ¶ 40), and the plurality of thin films or thin plates have a plurality of through patterns formed at the same or different positions in the same or different shapes and sizes (Jin Claim 5).
Regarding claim 8, Jin teaches the redox flow battery of claim 7, wherein the bipolar plate frames are the same as or thinner than the thickness of the bipolar plate (Jin Description of Embodiments ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 9, Jin teaches the redox flow battery of claim 7, wherein the bipolar plate frames includes a first cover film and second cover film corresponding to the third cover plate and fourth cover plate, a first fixing film and second fixing film corresponding to the first fixing plate and second fixing plate, with the bipolar plate positioned between the first fixing plate and second fixing plate (Jin Description of Embodiments ¶ 41).
Regarding claim 15, Jin teaches a redox flow battery comprising stacked frames (Jin Abstract). The recitation of 'manufactured by...’ is considered a product-by-process limitation and is not considered to render a patentable distinction over the prior art absent a showing as to how the claimed process affects the final structure of the claimed redox flow battery comprising stacked frames. See MPEP 2113. The teachings of Jin are considered to meet the claimed product-by-process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (KR 102352369) in view of Poirot-Crouvezier (US 20220162763).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Jin teaches the redox flow battery of claim 2, including a first flow path plate and second flow path plate, but not that the first flow path plate or second flow path plate include a plurality of pin-shaped irregularity portions formed in one region of the upper and lower sides of the opening, or that the irregularity portions are arranged to engage with each other in a misaligned manner. In a related field of endeavor, Poirot-Crouvezier teaches a bipolar plate for an electrochemical reactor wherein the anode and cathode sheets comprise alternating bosses and indentations that are staggered or misaligned when engaged with each other, ensuring good contact between the two sheets (Poirot-Crouvezier ¶ 24 - 25). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the teaching of Poirot-Crouvezier with the first and second flow path plates of Jin to form misaligned pin-shaped irregularities on one of the upper and lower sides of the opening because doing so would improve contact (Poirot-Crouvezier ¶ 24-25) between the flow path plate and the adjacent plates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights