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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 13, 16-18 in the reply filed on 7/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 11/15/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 11/15/2023 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 11/15/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation [VO2(H₂O)₃]⁺ )₃]⁺ is missing an open parenthesis.
In claim 9, it is unclear as to what “0.02S” means.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (US 2020/0259200) in view of Han (CN 106328976).
Regarding claim 1, Nie discloses an electrolyte for positive half-cell of a vanadium redox flow battery, the electrolyte comprising:
a solvent comprising water and sulfuric acid [0011];
a vanadium salt [0011];
a deprotonation inhibitor for [VO2(H₂O)₃]⁺ )₃]⁺ which is an inorganic compound selected from one or both of NH₄H₂PO₄ and (NH₄)₂HPO₄ [0011], and
Regarding claim 2, vanadium salt is present in an amount to provide a vanadium ion concentration of from 1.6 to 2.0 M [0048].
Regarding claim 7, the inorganic compound is one NH4H2PO4 [0046].
Regarding claim 8, the inorganic compound is (NH₄)₂HPO₄ [0046, 0054].
Regarding claim 13, the vanadium salt comprises a vanadium sulfate [0011].
Regarding claim 16, the electrolyte comprises sulphate ions in a concentration of from 2 to 6M (Table 1).
Regarding claim 17, the electrolyte comprises sulphate ions in a concentration of from 4 to 5M (Table 1).
Regarding claim 1, wherein the inorganic compound is present in an amount of from 0.25 to 1 wt% of the combined weight of the vanadium salt and the solvent, and regarding claim 4, the inorganic compound is present in an amount of from 0.25 to 0.5 wt% of the combined weight of the vanadium salt and the solvent, Nie discloses he aqueous supporting solution comprises sulfate ions, protons, and a dual-component system comprising chloride ions and phosphate ions to stabilize and increase the solubility of the vanadium species. Without wishing to be bound by a particular theory, it appears that the combination of sulfate ions, protons, chloride ions, and phosphate ions may act synergistically to stabilize and increase solubility of the vanadium species [0040]. The ammonium phosphate concentration is 0.05-0.5 M [0054]. It would have been obvious to adjust the amount of ammonium phosphate of Nie for the benefit of forming an electrolyte having good stability and solubility of vanadium.
Regarding claim 1, Nie does not disclose a V2O5 precipitation inhibitor, which is polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), wherein the PVP is present in an amount of from 0.025 to 0.1 wt% of the combined weight of the vanadium salt and the solvent. Han teaches that in a vanadium battery, it is easy for V2O5 to precipitate in an electrolyte solution. (page 2). Han teaches a vanadium redox flow battery having an organic additive with functional groups. See Abstract. The additive having functional groups can be absorbed on the surface of the vanadium ion through electrostatic repulsion between the vanadium ions dispersed, and hence reduce the collision probability, inhibiting vanadium ion condensation reaction to form an oligomer (page 3 of translation). An additive is polyvinylpyrrolidone (page 3 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add polyvinylpyrrolidone to the electrolyte of Nie, as taught by Han, for the benefit of reducing the precipitation of vanadium in the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 9, the PVP is present in an amount from 0.02S to 0.05 wt% of the combined weight of the vanadium salt and the solvent, Han teaches that the amount of additive is between 0.05% to 5% (page 2 of translation). Adding too much additive will damage the surface of the vanadium ion of the hydration layer, and larger volume substitution of small water molecules adsorbed on the surface of the vanadium ion increases the vanadium ion volume, and hence increases the viscosity. The concentration of the additive should be controlled to 5% (page 3 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to choose an appropriate amount of PVP in the electrolyte of Nie, as taught by Han, for the benefit of preventing the precipitation of vanadium in electrolyte.
Since Nie already has ions that synergistically stabilize and increase the solubility of vanadium species, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to add PVP below the lower limit of Han to prevent adding too much additive in the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 18, the electrolyte is capable of preventing the precipitation of more than 150 mg of V2O5 per 2 mL of the electrolyte following heating of the electrolyte for 7 days at 50°C, this is an inherent property of the electrolyte. Nie modified by Han meets all the limitations of the claims, and hence the limitation of claim 18 would be inherent to Nie modified by Han.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO WALLS whose telephone number is (571)272-8699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F until 5pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CYNTHIA K WALLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights