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 .
Restriction/Elections
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 15-17 in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would not find it obvious to combine the teachings of Koschany, Numata, and Barde given that the electrically conductive porous network of Numata would cause strain and disrupt the intimate bonds between the components of Koschany. This is not found persuasive because the intimate bonds referred to in Koschany ([0019]) are a result of the gas diffusion layer of the gas diffusion electrode being impregnated with least one electrically conductive material ([0013]). Teaching the electrically conductive porous network of Numata into Koschany would not interfere with this impregnation step but would be added on the electrically conductive grid of Koschany (i.e. the electrically conductive support) after the impregnation has occurs. The resulting structure would retain the intimate bonds of Koschany while resulting in direct contact between the electrically conductive support of Koschany and the electrically conductive porous network of Numata. Further, there is no evidence that the electrically conductive porous network of Numata would cause strain in Koschany.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/07/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites "A battery according to claim 12...". However, the scope of the claim is confusing given that claim 12 is drawn to an electrochemical device and not a battery.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde et al. (WO 2020200416 A1) in view of Koschany et al. (WO 9720358 A1). It is noted that the disclosures of Koschany et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claim 1 and 6:
PNG
media_image1.png
460
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Barde et al. teaches in Figure 5 above, a cathode 20 comprises a pre-conditioned 3D nanomesh structure 26 made of nanowires made of electronic conductive metal material ([0070]), i.e. an electrically conductive porous network of interconnected wires, and a gas diffusion layer 30 which is a porous and mechanically stable layer made of carbon paper or carbon cloth ([0051], [0086]), i.e. electrically conductive support structure, and the pre-conditioned 3D nanomesh structure is in direct physical and electrical contact with the electrically conductive support structure.
Barde et al. also teaches the pre-conditioned 3D nanomesh structure may have a volumetric surface area greater than or equal to 20 m2/cm3 and a porosity greater than or equal to 50 vol % and smaller than or equal to 90 vol % ([0056]).
However, Barde et al. does not teach a surface of the electrically conductive support structure, facing away from the electrically conductive porous network, and has openings representing from 2 to 90% of its surface area.
Koschany et al. teaches an electrically conductive grid, i.e. electrically conductive porous network, is installed on the side of the gas diffusion electrode, i.e. electrically conductive support structure, facing away from the membrane during fuel cell assembly, and its functions are to ensure sufficient current flow with low contact resistance to the gas diffusion electrode, to distribute the gases sufficiently evenly across the surface of the gas diffusion electrode, and simultaneously to press the electrode evenly against the membrane ([0032]).
Koschany et al. also teaches the electrically conductive grid open porosity is in the range of 20 to 99.9%, i.e. openings represent 2 to 90% of its surface area, so that they can be very easily filled with other materials and thus the porosity, conductivity and hydrophobicity of the finished gas diffusion layer can be specifically adjusted by the filling materials over the entire thickness of the gas diffusion layer ([0015])
Further, the openings would necessarily be fluidly connected to the pores of the electrically conductive porous network.
In light of the motivation for using an electrically conductive grid facing away from the membrane with an open porosity of 20 to 99.9% disclosed by Koschany et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrically conductive grid facing away from the membrane with an open porosity of 20 to 99.9% in the cathode of Barde et al. in view of Koschany et al. in order to ensure sufficient current flow with low contact resistance to the gas diffusion electrode, to distribute the gases sufficiently evenly across the surface of the gas diffusion electrode, to press the electrode evenly against the membrane, and to easily fill the openings with other materials so that the porosity, conductivity and hydrophobicity of the finished gas diffusion layer can be specifically adjusted.
Regarding claims 2-3:
Barde et al. in view of Koschany et al. teaches a cathode as set forth above.
Further, Barde et al. in view of Koschany et al. teaches the pre-conditioned 3D nanomesh structure is comprised of nickel nanowire and has a thickness of 40 μm ([0024]).
Regarding claims 5 and 17:
Barde et al. in view of Koschany et al. teaches a cathode as set forth above.
Further, Barde et al. teaches the nanowires have a diameter smaller than or equal to 500 nm ([0052]).
Regarding claim 16:
Barde et al. in view of Koschany et al. teaches a cathode as set forth above.
Further, Barde et al. teaches the pre-conditioned 3D nanomesh structure may have a thickness greater than or equal to 1 μm and smaller than or equal to 100 μm ([0054]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde et al. (WO 2020200416 A1) in view of Koschany et al. (WO 9720358 A1) and further in view of Oswin (US 4224392 A).
Regarding claim 4:
Barde et al. in view of Koschany et al. teaches a cathode as set forth above.
However, Barde et al. in view of Koschany et al. does not teach the electrically conductive support structure comprises Ni or Cu.
Oswin teaches nickel-oxide electrodes for use in batteries (column 1, lines 6-11). The electrodes comprise porous carbon impregnated with nickel hydroxide (column 3, lines 1-5). The nickel-oxide electrode provides essential ampere capacity, permits efficient charge and discharge, has essential mechanical strength and stability, and has low weight and volume (column 2, lines 45-63).
In light of the motivation for using nickel-oxide electrode disclosed by Oswin as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to impregnate the carbon gas diffusion layer of Barde et al. with nickel hydroxide to form a nickel-oxide gas diffusion layer in order to produce an electrode that provides essential ampere capacity, permits efficient charge and discharge, has essential mechanical strength and stability, and has low weight and volume.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde et al. (WO 2020200416 A1) in view of Koschany et al. (WO 9720358 A1) and further in view of Campbell et al. (US 20110206992 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
Barde et al. in view of Koschany et al. teaches a cathode as set forth above.
However, Barde et al. in view of Koschany et al. does not teach the electrically conductive support structure comprises Ni or Cu.
Campbell et al. teaches porous structures that can be used in secondary batteries ([0027]). The porous support structure can be made from nickel or carbon ([0037]) which leads to a large increase in cell performance ([0025]).
In light of the disclosure in Campbell et al. of the equivalence and interchangeability of using nickel with carbon for the porous support structure in electrodes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the carbon gas diffusion layer in Barde et al. with a nickel diffusion layer and produce a battery with a large increase in cell performance.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde et al. (WO 2020200416 A1) in view of Koschany et al. (WO 9720358 A1) and further in view of Desai et al. (US 20190047880 A1).
Regarding claim 15:
Barde et al. in view of Koschany et al. teaches a cathode as set forth above.
However, Barde et al. in view of Koschany et al. does not teach a redox flow battery comprising an anode and a cathode.
Desai et al. teaches two electrode plates can comprise an electrically conductive material such as nickel and copper, and can be constructed as a gas diffusion electrode ([0043]), i.e. a porous electrode comprising an electrically conductive porous network of interconnected wires, and to improve the surface area of the electrodes and to provide structural support for the membranes copper mesh is pressed onto the zinc anode ([0061]), i.e. electrically conductive support structure.
Desai et al. also teaches that flow batteries, i.e. redox flow batteries, are attractive for grid storage because they allow the energy storage capacity of the battery to be decoupled from the power that the battery can deliver ([0038]).
In light of the motivation for using flow batteries disclosed by Desai as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use flow batteries with the cathode of Barde et al. in view of Koschany et al. in order to allow the energy storage capacity of the battery to be decoupled from the power that the battery can deliver.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights