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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/14/2023 and 12/26/2023 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith. Drawings 4. The drawings were received on 9/14/2023. These drawings are acceptable. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Claim (s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter et al ( US 20190326619 A1 ) in view of Bheemireddy et al ( US 20220285729 A1 ) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Regarding claim 1, Winter discloses an electrolyte of a redox flow battery, comprising a n anolyte ( negative electrolyte ) , and a catholyte ( positive electrolyte ) , wherein an initial volume of the anolyte (negative electrolyte) is greater than an initial volume of the catholyte (positive electrolyte) [paragraph 0007, 00100, 0019, 0022, 0026, 0084, 0086-0087, 0103-0109, 0130-0137 , 0145-0147 ]. Winter remains silent that the anolyte (negative electrolyte) compris es a negative active material and a negative solvent; and the catholyte ( positive electrolyte ) compris es a positive active material and a positive solvent . However, it is well known that catholyte comprises a catholyte active material and a first non-aqueous solvent and anolyte comprises anolyte active material and a second non-aqueous solvent as taught by Bheemireddy [paragraph 0044, 0063]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 2 , Winter teaches that a ratio of the initial volume of the negative electrolyte to the initial volume of the positive electrolyte is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 1.2 [paragraph 0022, 0145-0147]. 8 . Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter et al (US 20190326619 A1) in view of Bheemireddy et al (US 20220285729 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Dong ( US 20150140471 A1 ). Regarding claim s 3-5 , Winter teaches that the negative active material and the positive active material comprise vanadium ions [paragraph 0086-0087] but remains silent about the solvent. However, it is known in the art to utilize the negative active material and the positive active material compris ing vanadium ions and the negative solvent and the positive solvent compris ing sulfuric acid aqueous solution as taught by Dong [paragraph 0023-0026, 0058] . Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. 9. Claim (s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat ( US 20220123343 A1 ) in view of Winter et al (US 20190326619 A1) . Regarding claim 6, Bhat discloses a redox flow battery ( 3 00) comprising a negative compartment comprising a negative electrode ( 3 08) , a negative bipolar plate ( 3 14) , and a negative electrolyte; a positive compartmen t , comprising a positive electrode ( 3 10) , a positive bipolar plate ( 3 16) , and a positive electrolyte; and an ion exchange membrane ( 3 12) , disposed between the negative compartment and the positive compartment [Fig. 3 ; paragraph 0067-0069]. Bhat remains silent that the volume of the negative electrolyte is greater than the volume of the positive electrolyte. However, , Winter discloses an electrolyte of a redox flow battery, comprising an anolyte (negative electrolyte), and a catholyte (positive electrolyte), wherein an initial volume of the anolyte (negative electrolyte) is greater than an initial volume of the catholyte (positive electrolyte) [paragraph 0007, 00100, 0019, 0022, 0026, 0084, 0086-0087, 0103-0109, 0130-0137, 0145-0147]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 7 , Winter teaches that a ratio of the initial volume of the negative electrolyte to the initial volume of the positive electrolyte is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 1.2 [paragraph 0022, 0145-0147]. 10 . Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat (US 20220123343 A1) in view of Winter et al (US 20190326619 A1) as applied in claim 6 and further in view of Dong ( US 20150140471 A1 ). Regarding claim s 8-10 , Bhat remains silent that the negative active material and the positive active material comprise vanadium ions and the solvent s comprise sulfuric acid aqueous solution . However, it is known in the art to utilize the negative active material and the positive active material compris ing vanadium ions and the negative solvent and the positive solvent compris ing sulfuric acid aqueous solution as taught by Dong [paragraph 0023-0026, 0058]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3719 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Tong Guo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3066 . 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. /MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723