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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Nonetheless, the Examiner has voluntarily revised claim 8 relative to the office action mailed on March 30, 2026. Therefore, Examiner will make this office action non-final.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Weng does not disclose that the catholyte comprises zinc iodide (Znl2) and a soluble starch, forming an electrolyte having aggregated colloidal nanoparticles', the Examiner notes Weng discloses that “iodide and the complexing agent together with the counter species are dissolved or suspended in the solvent” ((0053)). Therefore, Weng establishes an iodide species as colloidal substance.
Weng further describes that “the complexed iodine-based electrolyte comprises counter species to neutralize the complexed iodine-based electrolyte”, wherein “the counter species could be … Zn ions” ((0038)). Therefore, Weng further establishes a zinc-iodide (ZnI2) colloidal substance.
Weng further describes that “the complexing molecule is selected from the group consisting of … starch, carboxymethyl starch sodium and a combination thereof. In that embodiment, the complexing molecules form a particle with a diameter of 0.1 μm to 10 μm” ((0008)). Absent, pervasive circumstances, the Examiner considers particles with a diameter of 0.1 μm to 10 μm as “nanoparticles” absent pervasive circumstances. Therefore, Weng further establishes zinc iodide (Znl2) and a soluble starch, forming an electrolyte having colloidal nanoparticles.
The Examiner acknowledges Weng is silent on stating that the colloidal nanoparticles taught above form an aggregate(s). However, because Weng teaches the same composition of colloidal nanoparticles as the instant disclosure claims in claim 1, absent pervasive circumstances, it is the Examiner’s position that the colloidal nanoparticles of Weng will exhibit the same properties, including the property of forming an aggregate(s). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Weng discloses that the catholyte comprises zinc iodide (Znl2) and a soluble starch, forming an electrolyte having aggregated colloidal nanoparticles.
In response to applicant's arguments that Weng does not disclose that ''when the rechargeable aqueous Znl IIS flow battery system is in a charging state, the electrode material on the cathode side absorbs and stores one or more ions from the catholyte, and the electrode material on the anode side absorbs and stores one or more ions from the anolyte'', the Examiner notes that Weng discloses a rechargeable aqueous zinc|| iodine-starch (Zn||IS) flow battery system ((0005) One such design has been developed in the art, which refers to a Zn—I flow battery (ZIB)).
Mitofsky merely establishes support that it is a standard process in batteries that when the battery system is in a charging state, the electrode material on the cathode side absorbs and stores one or more ions from the catholyte, and the electrode material on the anode side absorbs and stores one or more ions from the anolyte (see Mitofsky, “negative ions flow from the cathode to the anode, and positive ions flow from the anode to the cathode”).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Weng strictly teaches the localized chemical complexation of iodine (''I'') rather than the multi-component iodine-starch colloidal phase (''IS'') claimed in the present invention, the Examiner notes that Weng discloses that the catholyte comprises zinc iodide (Znl2) and a soluble starch, forming an electrolyte having aggregated colloidal nanoparticles', as established in a response to an argument above. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Weng discloses the multi-component iodine-starch colloidal phase (''IS'') claimed in the present invention
Regarding applicant’s argument that Weng fails to disclose the self-assembly of the catholyte into ''aggregated colloidal nanoparticles'' driven by soluble starch to establish a distinct, macro-sized ''IS'' configuration, the Examiner notes that because Weng teaches the same composition of colloidal nanoparticles and soluble starch as the instant disclosure claims in claim 1, absent pervasive circumstances, it is the Examiner’s position that the colloidal nanoparticles of Weng will exhibit the same properties, including the property of forming an aggregate(s). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Weng discloses that the catholyte comprises zinc iodide (Znl2) and a soluble starch, forming an electrolyte having aggregated colloidal nanoparticles'.
Moreover, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “self-assembly of the catholyte into ''aggregated colloidal nanoparticles'' driven by soluble starch to establish a distinct, macro-sized ''IS'' configuration”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that Mitofsky does not address or propose any solution to the severely detrimental ''polyiodide crossover'' issue) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., regarding claim 1 that the presently claimed invention successfully implements a low-cost porous polymer membrane (LPPM/PP) and perfectly suppresses polyiodide crossover via a functional size-sieving effect while maintaining high ionic conductivity) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 as they apply to “the same electrode material on both sides” have been considered but is not found persuasive.
The Examiner notes that Weng discloses a cathode side comprising graphite-felt or carbon paper electrode ((0043) “the first (left) compartment has a graphite-felt or carbon paper electrode”). Moreover, Weng further discloses an anode side comprising graphite-felt or carbon paper electrode ((0043), "The second (right) compartment has … a graphite-felt or carbon paper electrode").
Applicant's arguments concerning claims 2, 4, and 9-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive since the Examiner has found the arguments of claim 1 not persuasive. Additionally, the applicant is reminded that the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant's arguments concerning claim 3, they do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant’s argument in claim 5 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the reference of Yuan, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Yuan teaches that use of zinc chloride in the anolyte to improve performance ((0008)) while reducing the impacts of reduced voltage efficiency and zinc dendrite or branch-like crystalline deposit formation ((0006)).
In response to applicant's argument in claim 5 that Yuan is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as alluded to in the obviousness argument above, use of zinc chloride in the anolyte of the disclose of Weng would be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor to prevent zinc dendrite or branch-like crystalline deposit formation (Yuan, (0006)) in the battery system of Weng that comprises zinc iodide (Znl2).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., regarding claim 6 that there must be a regulation of active redox species and that the porous membrane must have a unique size-sieving relationship that effectively blocks polyiodide crossover) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., regarding claim 7 that the porous membrane must have a unique size-sieving relationship that effectively blocks polyiodide diffusion while preserving high ionic conductivity) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., regarding claim 8 that the listed auxiliary components must be capable of preventing polyiodide crossover and colloidal phase regulation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument in claim 8 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, LU CN-114171766-A teaches in (9), "carbon-coated porous membranes" provides the benefit of increasing the current density of Zn ion battery, CAI CN-216618604-U, see (16) teaches that the use of PTFE auxiliary components enhances electrical insulation, heat and corrosion resistance, sealing and/or prevention of leaks, Schubert teaches that Ti metal is suitable for use as a current collector in a redox flow battery (173), thereby providing a redox flow battery. For these reasons, it is the Examiner’s position that Lu provides motivation for inclusion of a carbon plate, Cai provides motivation for inclusion of PTFE components, and Schubert provides motivation for use of Ti foil.
In response to applicant's arguments, regarding claim 15 that the reference of Weng and Schubert, when considered individually, do not teach the use of multi-component iodine-starch colloidal phase consisting of aggregated nanoparticles in grid-scale storage framework, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., regarding claim 15 that there must be a prevention of polyiodide crossover) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Non-patent literature cited:
Camille, K. 11.3: Solution Concentration - Molarity. Chemistry LibreTexts. https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/can/CHEM_210%3A_General_Chemistry_I_(An_Atoms_Up_Approach)/11%3A_Solutions_Concentration_and_Dilution/11.03%3A_Solution_Concentration_-_Molarity (accessed 2026-03-02).
Mitofsky, A. M. 9.3: Charge Flow in Batteries and Fuel Cells. Engineering LibreTexts. https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electrical_Engineering/Electro-Optics/Direct_Energy_(Mitofsky)/09%3A_Batteries_and_Fuel_Cells/9.03%3A_Charge_Flow_in_Batteries_and_Fuel_Cells (accessed 2026-03-10).
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) 1-2, 4, 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WENG US-20200075952-A1 with evidence by Mitofsky.
Regarding claim 1, WENG discloses, according to all the features of claim 1, a rechargeable aqueous zinc|| iodine-starch (Zn||IS) flow battery system ((0005) One such design has been developed in the art, which refers to a Zn—I flow battery (ZIB)), comprising:
a cathode side comprising an electrode material ((0043) “In particular embodiments, as shown in FIG. 2, the RFB 100 had two compartments, in which the first (left) compartment has a graphite-felt or carbon paper electrode”) and a first storage tank providing a catholyte ((0042), "two external tanks storing corresponding electrolytes"), wherein the catholyte comprises zinc iodide (ZnI2) and a soluble starch (Claim 4, "the complexed iodine-based electrolyte … wherein the complexing molecule is selected from the group consisting of ... polysaccharides, carboxymethyl starch sodium ... or their derivatives and a combination thereof”, (0045), "a mixture of ZnI.sub.2"., (0069) “A solution comprising X M ZnI.sub.2”), forming an electrolyte having aggregated colloidal nanoparticles ((0053), the counter specie is dissolved or suspended in the solvent to prepare the counter electrolyte; Claim 5, "wherein the complexing molecules form a particle with a diameter of 0.1 μm to 10 μm. (this office notes that these measurements corresponds to nanoparticles)");
an anode side ((0043), “The second (right) compartment”) comprising the same electrode material as that of the cathode side (the Examiner notes that as addressed above, the cathode side comprises graphite-felt or carbon paper electrode. Moreover, in (0043) of Zeng, Zeng discloses that “the second (right) compartment has a counter redox-active electrolyte (relative to a first cathode/anode side) and a graphite-felt or carbon paper electrode") and
a second storage tank providing an anolyte ((0043), "The second (right) compartment has a counter redox-active electrolyte (relative to a first cathode/anode side)"); and
a separator (106) positioned between the cathode and anode (Fig. 2) ((0043), The two compartments are separated), and
wherein the anolyte and the catholyte flow between the cathode and the anode by a peristaltic pump ((0043), "The first (left) reservoir 102 ... can be circulated by the first (left) peristaltic ... pump 104"..."The second (right) reservoir 110 ... can be circulated by the second (right) peristaltic ... pump 108"), and
wherein when the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system is in a charging state, the electrode material on the cathode side absorbs and stores one or more ions from the catholyte, and the electrode material on the anode side absorbs and stores one or more ions from the anolyte (This office notes that this paragraph of the claim (as presented in this office action) is a standard flow process in batteries and/or fuel cells, see Mitofsky, “negative ions flow from the cathode to the anode, and positive ions flow from the anode to the cathode”).
Regarding claim 2, the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, wherein the electrode material comprises carbon felt ((0043), "as shown in FIG. 2, the RFB 100 had two compartments, in which the first (left) compartment has a ... carbon paper electrode").
Regarding claim 4, the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, wherein the aggregated colloidal nanoparticles have a mean diameter in a range of 120-140 nm (Claim 5, "wherein the complexing molecules form a particle with a diameter of 0.1 μm to 10 μm).
Regarding claim 9-14, WENG teaches all of the aspects of claim 1. Because Weng teaches all the structural limitations of claim 1, it is understood that the device of Weng will provide the recited properties. There is nothing described in the specification that requires any further structure than claim 1 in order to achieve these properties:
Regarding claim 9, the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, wherein the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system has an overall internal resistance of less than 1 Ω cm2.
Regarding claim 10, The rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, wherein the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system has a power density of at least 40 mW cm-2.
Regarding claim 11, the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, wherein the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system exhibits at least 94% coulombic efficiency, at least 75% voltage efficiency, and at least 74% energy efficiency at current densities ranging from 7.5 to 30 mA cm-2 at room temperature.
Regarding claim 12, the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, wherein the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system exhibits at least 90% coulombic efficiency, at least 75% voltage efficiency, and at least 74% energy efficiency at current densities ranging from 7.5 to 30 mA cm-2 at a high temperature of 50 °C.
Regarding claim 13, the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, wherein the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system delivers a performance in terms of cycling stability for 350 cycles at 30 mA cm-2.
Regarding claim 14, the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, wherein the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system delivers a performance in terms of cycling stability for 200 cycles at a high volumetric capacity of 32.4 Ah L-1 at a high temperature of 50 °C.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WENG as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of NAKAISHI US-20040202915-A1.
WENG teaches the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 2, but is silent on wherein the carbon felt has a geometric area of 4.0 cm2 and a thickness in a range of 1-5 mm.
NAKAISHI teaches (0036), "the positive (negative) electrode 3 is formed of the carbon felt and is formed to have a size corresponding to a rectangular space defined in the cell frame".
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WENG by optimizing the size of the carbon felt electrode, as suggested by NAKAISHI, in order to have a corresponding shape defined in the cell frame.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WENG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YUAN CN-111200146-A.
WENG teaches the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the anolyte comprises zinc chloride.
YUAN teaches wherein the anolyte comprises zinc chloride ((0015), "Based on the above technical solution, preferably, the zinc precursor is zinc chloride").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WENG by inclusion of wherein the anolyte comprises zinc chloride, as suggested by YUAN. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WENG as applied to claim 1 above.
WENG teaches the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the catholyte is prepared with 2 M ZnI2 and 0.1 to 2 M of soluble starch dissolved in deionized water, while the anolyte is prepared with 2 M ZnCl2 in deionized water..
It is common knowledge in the art that solutions of known concentrations, such as the instant catholyte and/or anolyte, can be prepared using any molarity of solutes (or stock solutions) and performing the technique of dilution (See KASLAN teaches "Solutions of known concentration can be prepared either by dissolving a known mass of solute in a solvent and diluting to a desired final volume or by diluting the appropriate volume of a more concentrated solution (a stock solution) to the desired final volume.)".
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the system of WENG by any concentrations of catholyte, soluble starch, and analyte, to include the claimed concentrations, wherein the catholyte is prepared with 2 M ZnI2 and 0.1 to 2 M of soluble starch dissolved in deionized water, while the anolyte is prepared with 2 M ZnCl2 in deionized water, as suggested by KASLAN.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WENG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SUSS WO-2020129060-A1.
WENG teaches the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the separator comprises a porous polypropylene membrane.
SUSS teaches wherein the separator comprises a porous polypropylene membrane (Page 28, lines 7, 9; “The polymer backbones suitable for use in the CEM include … polypropylene”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WENG by inclusion of wherein the separator comprises a porous polypropylene membrane, as suggested by SUSS. This modification would benefit the system by providing a structure that is capable of conducting ions (SUSS, Page 28, line 3, “CEMs can be described as polymer electrolytes that conduct cations”).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WENG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LU CN-114171766-A, SCHUBERT CN-113261135-A, YU CN-115548358-A, LI CN-114956267-A, CAO CN-115224288-A, and MAHMOODOI WO-2022260829-A2.
WENG teaches the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system further comprises a PTFE endplate, a PTFE chamber, a PTFE gasket, a PTFE pad, a PTFE tube, a carbon plate and a Ti foil.
YU CN-115548358-A teaches (0033), "polytetrafluoroethylene plate B" .
LI CN-114956267-A teaches (0062), "reactor made of polytetrafluoroethylene, wherein the two chamber channels".
LU CN-114171766-A teaches (0072), "the PTFE gasket".
CAO CN-115224288-A teaches (0081) "polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) pad".
MAHMOODI WO-2022260829-A2 teaches (0068) "PTFE tubing".
YU, LI, LU, CAO, and MAHMOODI teach using a PTFE endplate, a PTFE chamber, a PTFE gasket, a PTFE pad, and PTFE tube in a fuel cell. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WENG by using a PTFE endplate, a PTFE chamber, a PTFE gasket, a PTFE pad, and PTFE tube in a Zn||IS flow battery, as suggested by YU, LI, LU, CAO, and MAHMOODI. This modification would benefit the system by enhancing electrical insulation, heat and corrosion resistance, sealing and/or preventing leaks (See CAI CN-216618604-U, (0016), “wherein it is provided with a PTFE anti-corrosion coating capable of ensuring that the corrosion liquid not corrode the valve core, the PTFE anti-corrosion coating has high temperature resistance and good compactness, low coefficient of friction high insulating strength and so on, … then through setting the hydrogenated nitrile rubber sealing ring … high strength, tear resistance, wear resistance, high heat resistance and acid and alkali resistance, at the same time, setting four hydrogenated nitrile rubber sealing ring to further improve the tightness of the valve rod ensuring that the liquid is not leaked out from the valve”).
LU CN-114171766-A teaches (0009), "carbon-coated porous membranes" provides the benefit of increasing the current density of Zn ion battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WENG by inclusion of a carbon plate, as suggested by LU. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). This modification would further benefit the system by increasing current density.
SCHUBERT CN-113261135-A teaches (0173), “titanium … can be used as the current collector in the redox flow battery group according to the invention.’.
To solve the same problem of providing a redox flow battery, Schubert teaches that Ti metal is suitable for use as a current collector in a redox flow battery (0173).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used Ti as the current collector(s) of the battery of Weng, based on Schubert's disclosure that Ti is a suitable material for this use.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WENG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SCHUBERT CN-113261135-A.
WENG teaches the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, but is silent on a wind and photovoltaic power generating system.
SCHUBERT teaches a wind and photovoltaic power generating system (Claim 20; " The redox flow battery pack ... for intermediate storage from … photovoltaic; Hydraulic power generation and wind power generation field.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WENG by a wind and photovoltaic power generating system comprising the rechargeable aqueous Zn||IS flow battery system of claim 1, as shown by SCHUBERT. This modification would benefit the system by allowing for improved means of storing energy produced from renewable sources.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set fourth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 30, 2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN M ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9302. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM U.S. 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, 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.
/E.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights