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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments.
Responds to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Independent Claims 1 and 19
Applicant argues that the claimed “ionic redox species” and “amphiphilic complexing agent” must constitute separate and distinct molecular compounds because the limitations are separately recited and because the specification describes the complexing agent as coupling or complexing with the ionic redox species. Applicant further argues that Brandt’s redox-active compounds were relied upon for both limitations.
The arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims do not expressly require that the ionic redox species and the amphiphilic complexing agent be separate molecules, separately introduced materials, or chemically unbound species. The recitation of two functional limitations does not, by itself prohibit a disclosed compound or composition from satisfying more than one limitations when the compound possesses the properties required by each limitation.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the term “amphiphilic complexing agent” encompasses a compound containing ionic or polar functionality and organic functionality that is capable of interacting with ionic species in the electrolyte. The claims do not recite a particular complexation equilibrium, binding constant, stoichiometric complex, or requirement that the agent remain chemically separate from every redox-active moiety.
Brandt discloses redox-active compounds having polymeric or oligomeric organic frameworks, redox-active groups, pendant ionic groups, and organic linking groups. The disclosed compounds therefore include both organic regions and ionic or polar regions and are capable of interacting with electrolyte ions and other charged species. Brandt’s compounds thus meet the structural and functional breadth of the claimed amphiphilic complexing agent.
Brandt further discloses ionic redox-actives species in the electrolyte, including the redox-active groups and compounds described in paragraphs [0026], [0029], and related portions of the reference. The fact that Brandt describes such functionality as part of a larger redox-active compound does not remove the disclosed ionic redox species from the composition. Applicant relies on portions of the present specification describing an amphiphilic complexing agent that “ couples with,” or is used “in combination with an ionic redox species. Those descriptions constitute embodiments of the invention but have not been incorporated into the claims as an express requirement that the two recited elements be separate, unbound molecular species.
Accordingly, Applicant’s proposed interpretation would import limitations from the specification into the claims. Brandt’s disclosure remains sufficient to meet the limitations of claims 1 and 19 under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Response Regarding the Same Material Satisfying Multiple Limitations
Applicant argues that paragraphs [0026] and [0029] of Brandt describe the same redox-active compounds relied upon as the amphiphilic complexing agent.
The argument is not persuasive because a single disclosed structure may satisfy multiple claim limitations where the limitations are not mutually exclusive and where the claim does not require physically distinct structures. The claimed properties of ionic redox activity and amphiphilic complexing functionality are not mutually exclusive. A functionalized redox-active organic compound may possess both redox-active ionic functionality and amphiphilic complexing functionality.
Brandt expressly discloses organic scaffolds, ionic or polar functional groups, redox-active groups, and linking groups within the electrolyte compounds. Such structures reasonably possess both the claimed ionic redox functionality and amphiphilic character.
Therefore, Brandt anticipates independent claims 1 and 19, and the corresponding arguments directed to dependent claims 2-6. 11, 14, 16, 17, and 21 do not overcome the rejection.
Claim 15
Applicant argues that the alkaline-earth metal cations disclosed in paragraph [0191] of Brandt are not, standing alone, “cationic metal-organic complexes” and are not redox species.
Applicant’s argument concerning isolated Mg2+ or Ca2+ ions has been considered. The rejection, however, is not limited to treating an isolated alkaline-earth ion, by itself, as the entire claimed metal-organic complex. Brandt discloses metal ions in an electrolyte environment containing organic redox-active and functionalized components. The metal ions may associate or coordinate with the disclosed organic and ionic functional groups in the electrolyte.
Additionally, claim 15 does not recite a particular coordination number, ligand geometry, metal-ligand bond strength, or isolated complex structure. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the disclosed associated of a cationic metal species with organic functional groups in Brandt’s electrolyte satisfies the claimed cationic metal-organic complex.
Applicant’s argument that the metal ions are included to increase conductivity does not establish that the ions cannot also participate in coordination or redox-related interactions. A disclosed component may preform more than one function. The rejection of claim 15 is therefore maintained.
Claim 23
Applicant argues that Brandt’s disclosure of polysulfides as redox-active groups does not disclose a separate ionic redox species.
The argument is not persuasive for substantially the same reasons discussed above. Claim 23 does not require that the polysulfide by introduced as a separate, unbound compound distinct from every other electrolyte component. Brandt expressly identifies polysulfide functionality as a redox-active group in paragraph [0086]. The polysulfide functionality is ionic and redox active and therefore meets the limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation. To the extent Applicant’s response refers to “polyhalides,” claim 23 was rejected based on Brandt’s disclosure of a polysulfide or thiolate, not a polyhalide. The polyhalide limitation is addressed in connection with claim 12. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 23 is maintained.
Claim 10 – Brandt in View of Song
Applicant argues that the proposed modification would require converting Brandt’s redox-active compound into a non-redox-active compound and would rend Brandt inoperative for its intended purpose.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not require removing the redox activity of Brandt’s redox-active compound. Rather, the combination includes an additional non-redox-active supporting or complexing electrolyte component while retaining Brandt’s redox-active supporting or complexing electrolyte component while retaining Brandt’s redox-active material. Brandt continues to provide the redox-active species, while Song provides the teaching that non-redox-active ionic components may be included to support conductivity and stability.
Thus, the proposed combination does not eliminate Brandt’s redox-active species or render the flow cell inoperative.
Applicant further argues that potassium and chloride ions are merely supporting electrolyte ions and do not themselves constitute the claimed amphiphilic complexing agent. The rejection is based on the collective teachings of Brandt and Song and the ordinary level of skill in electrolyte formulation. Brandt supplies amphiphilic functionalized organic structures, while Song expressly teaches that non-redox-active supporting ionic functionality may be incorporated into an electrolyte for conductivity and stabilization. It would have been obvious to select or configure the amphiphilic electrolyte component so that it is non-redox active while retaining the separate redox-active species disclosed by Brandt.
Applicant also argues that Brandt already includes supporting salts. The existence of supporting salts in Brandt does not teach away from employing the non-redox-active electrolyte components taught by Song. The use, substitution, or optimization of known supporting electrolyte components is a predictable variation, particularly because electrolyte composition and concentration are result-effective variables routinely optimized to obtain desired conductivity and stability. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is maintained.
General Argument Regarding a Separate Ionic Redox Species
Applicant argues that Schubert does not cure Brandt’s alleged failure to disclose an ionic redox species distinct from Brandt’s redox-active compounds.
The argument is not persuasive because, as explained above, the pending claims do not expressly require that every recited component constitute a physically separate and chemically unbound molecular species. Moreover, Schubert supplies additional ionic and redox-capable species that may be included in the electrolyte. The combined references therefore disclose or suggest electrolyte compositions containing both Brandt’s functionalized amphiphilic material and additional ionic species selected from Schubert.
The combination does not require bodily incorporation of every embodiment of Schubert into Brandt. Rather, the rejection is based on what the collective teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 – Polyhalide
Applicant argues that the Office improperly relied on unsupported Official Notice to conclude that quaternary ammonium halides form polyhalide species and that no motivation exists to include a polyhalide in Brandt.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Schubert expressly teaches quaternary ammonium halides in electrochemical electrolyte systems. One of ordinary skill in the electrochemistry would have understood that halide ions interact with molecular halogen species to establish polyhalide equilibria under appropriate electrochemical conditions. Such behavior is a recognized property of halide-based redox electrolytes and follows from the ordinary chemical behavior of halide and halogen species.
The rejection does not rely solely on an unsupported conclusory assertion. It relies on Schubert’s express disclosure of quaternary ammonium halides in an electrochemical environment together with the ordinary knowledge of a skilled artisan regarding halide redox chemistry.
It would have been obvious to includes the quaternary ammonium halide species taught by Schubert in Brandt’s electrolyte to provide charge transport, ionic conductivity, and reversible halide-based redox behavior. The inclusion of such known electrolyte materials for their known electrochemical properties would have yielded predictable results.
Applicant argues that Brandt already contains a redox-active compound and that no reason exists to add another redox-active species. The argument does not establish teaching away. Neither Brandt nor Schubert states that an electrolyte may contain only one redox-active species or that additional redox-active ionic species would render the cell inoperative. Electrolyte compositions commonly contain multiple electrochemically relevant component, and the skilled artisan would have selected concentrations and operating conditions appropriate to the desired voltage, conductivity, and storage characteristics. The rejection of claim 12, is therefore maintained.
Claim 13
Brandt and Schubert teach the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Brandt further teaches charge-balancing counterions including hydrogen ions, metal cations, and ammonium ions. Applicant has not presented a separated arguments establishing patentability of claim 13 beyond the arguments addressed for claim 12. The rejection of claim 13 is maintained.
Claim 22 – Carboxylate Group
Applicant does not separately dispute Shubert’s disclosure of carboxylate-containing anionic groups. Schubert teaches carboxylate and polycarboxylate species for electrolyte use.
It would have been obvious to select a carboxylate-containing anionic group for incorporation into Brandt’s electrolyte because carboxylate groups are known ionic functional groups capable of improving aqueous or polar-solvent compatibility, coordinating ionic species, and influencing electrolyte stability. The selection of a carboxylate from Schubert’s disclosed electrolyte components constitutes the predictable selection of a known electrolyte functional group for its known properties. The rejection of claim 22 is maintained.
Claims 24 and 25 – Anionic Metal-Organic Complexes
Applicant argues that Schubert merely lists supporting conductive salts and does not teach selectivity pairing metal cations and organic anions to form redox-active metal-organic complexes. Applicant also argues that complex formation is not inherent because the ions may remain solvated and that the rejection is based on hindsight.
The arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Schubert discloses both metal cations, including transition-metal species, and coordinating anions, including cyanide, carboxylate, and polycarboxylate ligands, in electrolyte systems. A person of ordinary skill in coordination chemistry would have understood that transition-metal ions and such coordinating ligands are capable of forming-metal ligand coordination complexes. The formation and use of metal-cyanide and metal-carboxylate complexes in electrochemical environments were known chemical applications of the disclosed classes of ions.
The rejection does not require that every possible cation and anion listed by Schubert from a claimed complex. It is sufficient that Schubert teaches species from which the skilled artisan would have selected compatible metal ions and coordinating ligands with reasonable expectation of forming a metal-organic coordination complex having useful electrochemical properties.
Applicant argues that the ions might remain solvated rather than complexed. However, the possibility that some conditions favor solvated ions does not negate the obviousness of selecting conditions known to favor coordination. Electrolyte concentration, solvent, pH, ligand identity, metal identity, and stoichiometry are result-effective variables routinely adjusted by those skilled in electrolyte and coordination chemistry.
The proposed combination is not based on hindsight because Schubert itself supplies both the metal ions and coordinating ligand classes, while Brandt supplies the redox-flow-cell electrolyte environment. The rationale is grounded in the known affinity of transition-metal ions for cyanide, carboxylate, and polycarboxylate ligands and in the known electrochemical utility of such coordination complexes.
Applicant further argues that the skilled artisan would avoid adding a second redox-active species because competing redox processes might reduce reversibility or performance. This argument is speculative and is unsupported by objective evidence. Neither reference teaches that the proposed species are incompatible, and the possibility that routine optimization may be required does not render the combination nonobvious. Obviousness does not require that the prior-art combination be the most preferred or optimal embodiment.
Applicant also argues that relatively small coordination complexes could cross Brandt’s size-exclusion membrane. The argument is not persuasive because the claims do not require retention by a particular size-exclusion membrane or prohibit selection of a membrane appropriate for the selected redox species. Moreover, modifying membrane properties, molecular size, ligand selection, or electrolyte formulation to limit crossover would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 25, Schubert teaches cyanide, carboxylate, and polycarboxylate ligands. Selection of the recited cyano, carboxylate, polycarboxylate, or polyaminocarboxylate ligand from known coordinating ligand classes would have been an obvious design choice yielding predictable coordination behavior. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 24 and 25 are maintained.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6,10-17,19 and 21-25 are pending.
Claims 1-6,10-17,19 and 21-25 have been examined.
Claims 1-6,10-17,19 and 21-25 are rejected.
Claims 7-9, 18, 20 are cancelled.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 11, 14-17, 19, 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brandt, B et al. (DE 102014001816), hereinafter Brandt.
Regarding claim 1, Brandt teaches a redox flow cell (Claim 1, [0001]), comprising:
An anode cell compartments (Claim 1, [0003], [0023], electrode chambers 1,2) comprising:
An anode in an anolyte solution (Claim 1, [0003], [0023], electrode 10, 11);
An anolyte reservoir in fluid communication with the anode cell compartment (Claim 1, [0003], [0023], electrode chambers 1,2);
A cathode cell compartment (Claim 1, [0003], [0023], electrode chambers 1,2) comprising:
A cathode in a catholyte solution (Claim 1, [0003], [0023], electrode 10, 11);
A catholyte reservoir in fluid communication with the cathode cell compartment (Claim 1, [0003], [0023], electrode chambers 1,2);
An ion-permeable membrane separating the anolyte solution from the catholyte (Claim 1, [0001], [0023], membrane 3), wherein one or both of the anolyte solution and the catholyte solution comprises:
A solvent (Claim 1, [0001], [0023]);
An ionic redox species dissolved in the solvent ([0029]);
Charge-balancing counter ions dissolved in the solvent ([0026]);
An amphiphilic complexing agent dissolved in the solvent, wherein the amphiphilic complexing agent comprises at least one anionic group linked to at least one cationic group by an organic linker chain (Claim 1, Claim 2, [0102-0104], L1-L26 are linkers, RE1-RE6 are redox active units).
The reference discloses a redox flow cell comprising redox-active components dissolved in an electrolyte solvent, wherein the redox-active components include polymeric and/or oligomeric structures having functionalized organic frameworks. Specifically, the references teaches compounds including polymer skeletons (PG1, PG2, PG3, PG4) functionalized with redox active groups (RAE1, RAE2) and pendant groups (COM1, COM2), wherein the various moieties are interconnected via linking groups (LI1-LI5), which are explicitly described as covalent bonds or divalent organic bridging groups.
The structures disclosed in the reference inherently satisfy the claimed “amphiphilic complexing agent.” In particular, the reference teaches redox-active components that include both:
Ionic or polar functional groups (e.g., redox-active moieties, conductive salt-compatible groups, and pendant groups capable of charge stabilization in electrolyte media), and
Nonpolar or organic polymer backbones (PG1-PG4_,
Thereby forming molecules having both hydrophilic (ionic/polar) and hydrophobic (organic backbone) regions. Such structural compositions are characteristic of amphiphilic compounds, as they contain distinct domains with differing affinities toward the solvent environment. The dissolution, dispersion, or emulsification of these components in the electrolyte solvent, as explicitly disclosed by the reference, further evidences their amphiphilic nature.
Furthermore, the reference discloses that these functional groups are linked via organic linker chains, specifically the linking groups LI1-LI5. These linking groups are describes as:
Covalent bonds between polymer skeletons and redox-active groups, or
Divalent organic bridging groups connecting various structural units.
Such divalent organic bridging groups correspond to the claimed “organic linker chain,” as they provide the molecular linkage between different functional moieties within the compound.
Additionally, the reference’s disclosure of multiple interconnected structural units (including PG backbones, redox-active groups, and pendant groups) inherently includes species in which:
At least one functional group exhibits anionic character
At least one functional group exhibits cationic character
With such groups being covalently connected via the disclosed linker groups (LI1-LI5). The presence of conductive salts and ion-exchange membranes in the system further supports that the disclosed molecules are designed to interact with both cationic and anionic species, reinforcing their amphiphilic and ionically functionalized character.
Regarding claim 2, Brandt teaches the anionic group comprises a sulfate group or sulfonate group ([191], sulfonate group).
Regarding claim 3, Brandt teaches the cationic group comprises a cationic aliphatic quaternary ammonium group, a protonated secondary or tertiary ammonium group, a cyclic quaternary ammonium group, a nitrogen-containing heteroaromatic ring (Claim 5, [0009], [0130]).
Regarding claim 4, Brandt teaches the cationic group comprises an alkyl substituent, and alkyl alcohol substituent, a polyether substituent, or a combination of two or more thereof ([0130], [0133]).
Regarding claim 5, Brandt teaches the cationic group comprises an imidazolium group, a benzimidazolium group, a pyridinium group, a bipryridinium group, a 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane-i ,4-diium group, an aziridinium group, an azetidinium group, a pyrrolidinium group, a piperidinium group, a morpholinium group, a piperazinium group, or an imidazolidinium group ([0009], imidazolium, pyridinium, piperidinium, morphol).
Regarding claim 6, Brandt teaches the cationic group comprises a sulfonium cation or a phosphonium cation ([0009])
Regarding claim 11, Brandt teaches the ionic redox species comprises an anionic redox species and the charge-balancing counter ions are cations ([0026], [0030], “electrolyte conducting salts, which serve for charge balancing”).
Regarding claim 14, Brandt teaches the ionic redox species comprises a cationic redox species and the charge-balancing counter ions comprise anions.
Regarding claim 15, Brandt teaches the ionic redox species comprises a cationic metal-organic complex ([0191], alkaline earth metal cations are considered metal-organic complexes).
Regarding claim 16, Brandt teaches the charge-balancing counter ions comprise halide ions, sulfate, ions, hydroxide ions, nitrate ions, phosphate ions, borate ions, or chlorate ions (Claim 5, [0009], [0193], halide ions, sulfate ions, hydroxide ions).
Regarding claim 17, Brandt teaches the solvent comprises water (Claim 13, [0001], [0191]).
Regarding claim 19, Brandt teaches an electrolyte solution (Claim 1, [0001], [0023]) comprising:
A solvent (Claim 1, [0001], [0023]);
An ionic redox species dissolved in the solvent ([0026]);
Charge-balancing counter ions dissolved in the solvent ([0026]);
An amphiphilic complexing agent dissolved in the solvent (Claim 1, Claim 2, [0102-0104]);
The amphiphilic complexing agent comprises at least one: anionic group linked to at least one cationic group by an organic linker chain, and further wherein the at least one anionic group comprises a sulfate group, a sulfonate group, a phosphate group, a phosphonate group, or a carboxylate group (Claim 1, Claim 2, [0102-0104]);
At least one cationic group comprises: an aliphatic quaternary ammonium group, a protonated secondary or tertiary ammonium group, a cyclic quaternary ammonium group, a nitrogen-containing heteroaromatic ring, a sulfonium cation or a phosphonium cation (Claim 5, [0009], [0130]).
Regarding claim 21, Brandt teaches the anionic group comprises a phosphate group or a phosphonate group (Claim 5, [0009], [0130], [0191]).
Regarding claim 23, Brandt teaches the ionic redox species comprises a polysulfide or a thiolate ([0086], polysulfide).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in further view of Song, Yang et al. (US 20200161685), hereinafter Song.
Regarding claim 10, Brandt teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Brandt teaches a redox flow cell comprising an electrolyte solution containing redox-active components dissolved in a solvent, along with conductive salts and additional dissolved species. Brandt further teaches the presence of ionic species within the electrolyte, including chloride anions and potassium cations ([0009], [0191]), which function to maintain conductivity and facilitate ion transport within the electrochemical system. Thus, Brandt teaches an electrolyte environment comprising both anionic and cationic species dissolved in a solvent. Brandt fails to teach that the electrolyte includes a non-redox active amphiphilic complexing agent.
Song teaches an electrolyte for electrochemical systems that may include supporting non-redox active species specifically identifying potassium cations and chloride anions as exemplary components ([0077]). Song teaches that such non-redox active ionic species may be included in the electrolyte to enhance ionic conductivity, stabilize the electrochemical environment, and improve overall system performance. Brandt and Song are analogous in the art of redox flow cells. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Brandt to include the non-redox active ionic species as taught by Song. The motivation for such modification arises from the express teaching in Song that inclusion of supporting ionic species improves electrolyte performance, including conductivity and stability. Moreover, the substitution or incorporation of known electrolyte components into an existing electrolyte system represents a simple substitution of one known component for another to obtain predictable results. Electrolyte formulation is a result-effective variable, and the selection of particular ionic species for inclusion is routinely optimized based on known properties.
Claims 12, 13, 22, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in further view of Schubert, Ulrich Sigmar et al. (US 20220020990), hereinafter Schubert.
Regarding claim 12, Brandt teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as stated above. Brandt teaches a redox flow cell comprising an electrolyte solution containing redox-active components dissolved in a solvent, along with conductive salts and additional dissolved species. Brandt fails to teach that the ionic redox species comprises a polyhalide. Schubert teaches the use of quaternary ammonium halides in electrochemical systems ([00125]). Quaternary ammonium halides are well known in the art to form polyhalide species in solution through equilibrium interactions between halide ions and halogen species. Brandt and Schubert are analogous in the art of redox flow cells. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Brandt to include the quaternary ammonium halide species of Schubert. The motivation for such modification is to take advantage of the known electrochemical properties of polyhalide species, including their ability to participate in redox reactions and enhance charge transport and storage characteristics in electrochemical systems. Furthermore, incorporating quaternary ammonium halides to generate polyhalide ionic redox species represents a simple substitution or addition of known electrolyte components to achieve predictable electrochemical behavior.
Regarding claim 13, Brandt and Schubert teach the limitations of claim 12, as stated above. Brandt further teaches the charge-balancing counter ions comprise H+, metal cations, or NH4+ ([0009]).
Regarding claim 22, Brandt teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as stated above. Brandt teaches a redox flow cell comprising an electrolyte solution containing dissolved ionic species, including anionic and cationic components, within a solvent. Brandt fails to teach that the anionic group comprises a carboxylate group. Schubert teaches the anionic group comprises a carboxylate group ([0080-0084]). Brandt and Schubert are analogous in the art of redox flow cells. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Brand to include the carboxylate-containing anionic group as taught by Schubert. Carboxylate groups are well known in the art as negatively charged functional groups that enhance solubility in polar solvents and contribute to ionic conductivity and stability within electrolyte systems. Furthermore, the substitution of one known anionic group with another known anionic group represent a simple substitution of one known equivalent for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, Brandt teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as stated above. Brandt teaches a redox flow cell comprising an electrolyte solution comprising electrolyte solutions with dissolved ionic species, including redox-active components and conductive salts containing various anions and cations. Brandt fails to teach that the ionic redox species comprises an anionic metal-organic complex. Schubert teaches electrolyte solutions for redox flow batteries comprising a wide variety of inorganic and organic anions, including cyanide ions, and anions of organic acids such as acetate, citrate, malonate, oxalate, tartrate, and related species ([0080-0084]). Schubert further teaches the presence of metal cations such as iron, zinc, lithium, sodium, potassium, and others within the electrolyte system. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combinations of metal cations (such as Fe, Zn) with coordinating anionic ligands (such as cyanide or polycarboxylates) inherently form metal-organic coordination complexes, many of which are anionic in nature (e.g., hexacyanometalates or metal-carboxylate complexes). Such complexes are well known as ionic redox-active species. Brandt and Schubert are analogous in the art of redox flow cells. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to utilize such known metal-ligand combinations within the electrolyte system of Brandt in view of Schubert, as Shubert explicitly teaches both the metal cations and the coordinating anionic ligands in the same electrolyte environment. The formation of anionic metal-organic complexes form these components is a predictable result of their known coordination chemistry. Additionally, the selection incorporation of such complexes into electrolyte systems represents a routine optimization and combination of known components to achieve predictable electrochemical properties, including redox activity and stability.
Regarding claim 25, Brandt and Schubert teach the limitations of claim 24, as stated above. As stated above, Schubert explicitly teaches cyanide ions (cyanogen-based ligands), and anions of organic acids, including carboxylates, and polycarboxylates (e.g., citrate, malonate, oxalate, tartrate, glutarate) ([0080-0084]). These ligands are well known in the art to function as coordinating ligands for metal ions, forming metal-organic complexes. Polycarboxylate ligands (e.g., citrate, oxalate) and related structures are classic chelating agents used to form stable anionic metal-organic complexes. Brandt and Schubert are analogous in the art of redox flow cells. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to select such ligands from among the expressly disclosed options in Schubert for coordination with the taught metal cations, thereby forming the claimed anionic metal-organic complexes. The selection of specific ligands represents a routine choice among known, functionally equivalent coordinating ligands, yielding predictable coordination compounds with known electrochemical utility.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571)431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights