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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation, “wherein sequentially stacking the layers to form each membrane electrode assembly of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies via roll-to-roll processing includes, for each respective membrane electrode assembly of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies, includes” should recite: --wherein sequentially stacking the layers to form each membrane electrode assembly of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies via roll-to-roll processing includes, for each respective membrane electrode assembly of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major (DE102005058370; foreign copy and machine translations attached) in view of Seipp (US20160164112A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 6 and 15:
Claim 1 recites “sequentially stacking layers to form each membrane electrode assembly of a stack of membrane electrode assemblies via roll-to-roll processing”. Claim 6 recites, “sequentially stacking and adhering layers to form a membrane electrode assembly via roll-to-roll processing”. Claim 15 recites “feeding a first raw material sheet and a second raw material sheet from a respective roll” and “thermally welding the first raw material sheet to the second raw material sheet”.
Major discloses a continuous roll-to-roll manufacturing method for fabricating an electrochemical cell assembly [par. 0007], comprising:
feeding a continuous web of thermoplastic polymer carrier material (carrier webs 72,74 made of plastic) from supply rolls 76,78 [pars. 0032-35; Fig. 3];
positioning internal electrode components (electrode membrane units, EME 15a) between the thermoplastic carrier materials [pars. 0032-35; Fig. 3]; and
adhering by thermally and/or ultrasonically welding the thermoplastic carrier material to form a sealed membrane electrode assembly {Although Major does not explicitly mention specifically “thermal welding” or “thermoplastic”, a PHOSITA would appreciate that ultrasonic welding generates localized frictional and molecular heat, and that, as a matter of fundamental of polymer science, thermosetting plastics cannot be ultrasonically or thermally welded because they do not melt after curing – only thermoplastics can be ultrasonically welded} [pars. 0032-35; Fig. 3].
Major further teaches the individual cell units can be stacked on top of each other in order to form a larger cell containing any number of cell units [pars. 0027,0046].
The claims further recite operating the assembly as a “redox flow battery” while pumping electrolytes through “respective fluid manifolds”. Major discloses its roll-to-roll steps in the context of a fuel cell, but does not explicitly detail liquid electrolytes or fluid manifolds for a redox flow battery. However, Seipp, from the same field of endeavor, teaches an electrochemical cell and stack specifically configured for a redox flow battery [Seipp – pars. 0043-47; Fig. 4], and further teaches that the flow battery comprises an ion-exchange membrane 15 and electrodes 5 bonded to thermoplastic frame elements 2,3,2 via direct thermal welding to create leak-proof cell chambers through which active liquid electrolytes are pumped via fluid manifolds [Seipp – pars. 0022-23,0025,0043-47,0019; Fig. 4]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teaches of Seipp to have modified the continuous manufacturing process of Major by substituting the fuel cell components with redox flow battery components taught by Seipp in order to automate the assembly of Seipp’s redox flow battery cells, dramatically increase manufacturing throughput, achieve consistent thermal hermetic seals without applying adhesive, and reduce unit manufacturing costs [Major – pars. 0004-7].
Further, the step of operating the membrane electrode assembly stack of as the redox flow battery of modified Major while pumping positive and negative electrolytes into the membrane electrode assembly stack through respective fluid manifolds where the fluid manifolds fluidically couple each membrane electrode assembly of the membrane electrode assembly stack is prima facie obvious as Seipp specifically teaches that the redox flow battery is design for generating electrical energy by way of pumping respective electrolytes of half-cells through the stack [Seipp – pars. 0004-6,0024].
Claim 6 further recites, “wherein pumping positive and negative electrolytes inflates the membrane electrode assembly stack.” Claim 15 further recites, “wherein the first and second raw material sheets are included in a membrane electrode assembly of a membrane electrode assembly stack configured to expand when operating as a redox flow battery.” While Seipp fails to explicitly teach this limitation, an ordinary skilled artisan would appreciate that the membrane of a membrane electrode assembly undergoes physical expansion due to swelling from liquid electrolyte absorption during operation. Thus, modified Major meets the limitations “wherein pumping positive and negative electrolytes inflates the membrane electrode assembly stack,” and “wherein the first and second raw material sheets are included in a membrane electrode assembly of a membrane electrode assembly stack configured to expand when operating as a redox flow battery.” {NOTE: Examiner notes neither claim 6 nor claim 15 positively recite a dedicated structural housing or specific frame geometry that requires the thermoplastic sheets to constitute an expandable/inflatable housing. The claims broadly require the membrane electrode assembly stack inflate/expand during operation. Since membrane electrode assembly in its ordinary meaning is known to constitute the membrane sandwiched by the positive/negative electrode components, expansion of the membrane meets the requirements of these claims during operation}.
Regarding Claim 2, 10, 11 and 20, modified Major teaches wherein sequentially stacking the layers to form each membrane electrode assembly of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies via roll-to-roll processing includes, for each respective membrane electrode assembly of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies:
welding a first conductive sheet (an electrode 5) to a first thermoplastic sheet (an outer cell frame element 2) [Seipp – pars. 0045-46,0025; Fig. 4];
positioning a negative electrode spacer on the first conductive sheet (reaction felt 13 locating in cell inner space in contact with the electrode 5) [Seipp – par. 0046; Fig. 4];
welding a second thermoplastic sheet to the first thermoplastic sheet (inner cell frame 3) [Seipp – pars. 0047-48; Fig. 4];
welding a membrane sheet 15 to the second thermoplastic sheet [Seipp – pars. 0047-48; Fig. 4];
positioning a positive electrode (a second reaction felt 13) on the membrane sheet [Seipp – par. 0046; Fig. 4];
welding a third thermoplastic sheet (the second outer cell frame element 2) to the second thermoplastic sheet [Seipp – pars. 0045-46; Fig. 4]; and
welding a second conductive sheet (a second electrode 5) to the third thermoplastic sheet; and thereafter
cutting the first, second, and third thermoplastic sheets from a roll of each respective thermoplastic sheet to form the respective membrane electrode assembly [Major – pars. 0017-119,0025],
wherein sequentially stacking and adhering layers to form the membrane electrode assembly includes forming a membrane electrode assembly housing by adhering extruded thermoplastic sheets or frames, adhereing conductive sheets to an exterior of the membrane electrode assembly housing, and adhering a membrane sheet to an interior surface of the membrane electrode assembly housing, and
wherein the membrane bisects an internal volume of the membrane electrode assembly into positive and negative electrode compartments while permitting ionic conduction therebetween (implicit characteristic of redox fuel cells).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Major teaches that the stack of membrane electrode assemblies is formed by electrically connecting electrodes (i.e., conductive sheets) of adjacent cell units to form a series connection [Major – pars. 0027,0046; Seipp – pars. 0006,0028]. Thus, the redox flow battery of modified Major necessarily teaches wherein an electrical contact resistance between adjacent membrane electrode assemblies of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies is lower while the stack of membrane electrode assemblies is being operated as the redox flow battery than while the stack of membrane electrode assemblies is not being operated as the redox flow battery {Refer to PgPublication of instant application which teaches that “because the respective conductive sheets of pairs of adjacent MEAs 204 may be pressed against one another during operation of the MEAs 204 as redox flow battery cells… conductive sheets of adjacent MEAs 204, being in physical contact with one another and having a relatively low electrical contact resistance therebetween, may conduct electricity in series” [par. 0061]}.
Further, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, the membrane electrode assembly in its ordinary meaning is known to constitute the membrane sandwiched by the positive/negative electrode components, expansion of the membrane during operation and contraction thereof during inoperable state is an inherent characteristic thereof. Thus, the redox flow battery of modified major necessarily reads on the limitations:
wherein the stack of membrane electrode assemblies is expanded to a first volume via a first fluid pressure while the stack of membrane electrode assemblies is being operated as the redox flow battery,
wherein the stack of membrane electrode assemblies is contracted to a second volume via a second fluid pressure while the stack of membrane electrode assemblies is not being operated as the redox flow battery,
wherein the first volume is greater than the second volume, and
wherein the first fluid pressure is greater than the second fluid pressure.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Major teaches wherein adhering includes thermally welding [Major – pars. 0007,0034; Seipp – pars. 0018-19].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Major teaches wherein adhering does not include applying adhesive (i.e., thermal or ultrasonic welding) [Major – pars. 0007,0034; Seipp – pars. 0018-19].
Regarding Claim 14, while Seipp does not explicitly teach wherein pumping positive and negative electrolytes includes pumping positive and negative electrolytes comprised of iron ions, a PHOSITA would readily appreciate that iron-based electrolytes in which the positive and negative electrolytes include Fe2+/Fe3+ ions. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the method of Major, wherein pumping positive and negative electrolytes includes pumping positive and negative electrolytes comprised of iron ions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Major teaches wherein the one or more electrode components is a negative electrode spacer or a positive electrode [Id.].
Regarding Claims 17-18, modified Major teaches wherein the first raw material sheet and the second raw material sheet are composed of materials which maintain structural integrity when thermally welded, and wherein thermally welding includes thermally welding at adherence regions configured for hermetic sealing or structural integrity of the membrane electrode assembly [Major – pars. 0007-8,0034; Seipp – pars. 0016-17,0019-20,0025].
Regarding Claim 19, modified Major teaches wherein the first raw material sheet and the second raw material sheet are one of extruded thermoplastic sheets, conductive sheets, or membrane sheets [Id.].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major and Seipp, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Badding (US20060166053A1).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Major teaches the method of claim 3, but fails to teach the method further comprising:
electrically coupling testing probes to at least one membrane electrode assembly of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies while the stack of membrane electrode assemblies is not being operated as the redox flow battery;
conducting voltage testing of the at least one membrane electrode assembly of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies via the testing probes; and
responsive to identifying one or more degraded membrane electrode assemblies of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies during the voltage testing, replacing the one or more degraded membrane electrode assemblies.
However, Badding, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a membrane electrode assembly stack (i.e., fuel cell) in which the at least one membrane electrode assembly is coupled with probes (leads 600) to obtain voltage readout via readout indicator 610, and when it is determined that one or more of the membrane electrode assemblies are degraded (sub-standard), the one or more degraded membrane electrode assemblies is removed and replaced [Badding – pars. 0210-225]. It is noted that the instant claim seems to suggest a manual voltage test as opposed to an automated voltage test taught by Badding. However, manually performing a known activity in the art which is taught by prior art to be automated, or vice versa, to accomplish the same results is not sufficient to distinguish the claim over prior art [MPEP 214.04(III)]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Badding to have further modified the method of Major to have comprised electrically coupling testing probes to at least one membrane electrode assembly of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies while the stack of membrane electrode assemblies is not being operated as the redox flow battery; conducting voltage testing of the at least one membrane electrode assembly of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies via the testing probes; and responsive to identifying one or more degraded membrane electrode assemblies of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies during the voltage testing, replacing the one or more degraded membrane electrode assemblies, to accomplish the same result involving routine skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success which is not distinguished over the prior art.
Claim(s) 5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major and Seipp, as applied to claims 1 and 6, respectively, and further in view of Kato (US20200194809A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 7-8, modified Major teaches wherein each respective membrane electrode assembly of the stack of membrane electrode assemblies includes is fluidically coupled to the respective membrane electrode assembly for form fluid manifolds, and herein the positive and negative electrolytes are admitted into the interior of each of membrane electrode assembly from the fluid manifolds via channels formed in the respective frame (i.e., holes Q or channels 6,7,8,9) [Seipp – pars. 0044-45; Figs. 3-4]. Modified Major fails to teach wherein each membrane electrode assembly includes channeled electrolyte distribution inserts fluidically coupling an interior of the respective membrane electrode assembly to the fluid manifolds. However, Kato, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a redox flow battery including a stack of membrane electrode assemblies formed using frames, the frames including frame channels for forming fluid manifolds for distribution of positive and negative electrolytes, respectively, via electrolyte pathways [Kato – pars. 0027,0029,0034,0051; Figs. 1-4]. Kato further teaches that each frame channel may include inserts 2002A-2002D,2100 used to allow an electrolyte solution to flow from one frame channel of a first frame plate to a frame channel of a respective frame plate as well as distribute electrolyte via connection element 2102 (i.e., rendering the insert as a channeled electrolyte distribution insert) into the frame plate by engaging with electrolyte pathway of the frame plate [Kato – pars. 0086-97; Figs. 14-16D]. Kato further teaches that the respective fluid manifolds are formed by interlocked channeled electrolyte distribution inserts (i.e,. the insert comprises an attachment element 2120 which is received in a receiving element of a frame and a sealing element 2112 which couples the insert to the adjacent frame [Kato – pars. 0092]. Kato teaches that these interconnected inserts are removable and form a shared, common manifold to supply and return electrolytes to individual cells when multiple frame assemblies are stacked [Kato – pars. 0048,0092]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the method of Major to have comprises wherein each membrane electrode assembly includes channeled electrolyte distribution inserts fluidically coupling an interior of the respective membrane electrode assembly to the fluid manifolds, wherein the respective fluid manifolds are formed by interlocked channeled electrolyte distribution inserts in order to form a common shared, common manifold to supply and return electrolytes to individual cells when multiple frame assemblies are stacked, wherein each insert is individually removable.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major and Seipp, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Abdou (US20050064266A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Major fails to teach the method further comprising after forming the membrane electrode assembly conducting a pneumatic pressure test, including diagnosing a presence of a leak in seals of the membrane electrode assembly. However, Abdou, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a stack of membrane electrode assembly in which a pneumatic leak test using air or helium is performed to ensure proper cell-to-cell alignment and establish cell-to-cell seal [Abdou – par. 0073]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Abdou to have further modified the method of Major to have comprised after forming the membrane electrode assembly conducting a pneumatic pressure test, including diagnosing a presence of a leak in seals of the membrane electrode assembly in order to ensure proper cell-to-cell alignment and establish cell-to-cell seal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights