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 .
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: throughout the specification the term “rate” (a time-dependent value) is used in what appears to be a mistranslation of the original foreign specification’s term “ratio” (a percentage or fractional value without units). For example Instant [0024] recites “In the redox flow battery system of the present disclosure, a rate of a number of the second banks to a total number of the plurality of banks may be 30% or less.” which is not dependent on time but is a percentage or ratio. This occurs throughout the Instant specification. It is unclear if there are additional translational errors absent a certified translation of the original foreign specification.
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.
Claims 4, 6 and 8-9 are 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.
Claims 4, 6 and 8-9 in lines 2, 1, 3 and 3, respectively, recite the limitation “rate” which renders the meaning of the claim indefinite. As noted above, a rate is a time-dependent value with units and the values associated with “rate” are unit-less percentages. It is unclear if applicant intends the percentages to be time dependent. In order to advance prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the limitation “rate” as “ratio” in line with the values being a percentage.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumamoto JP2015156266A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 14 August 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Kumamoto discloses a redox flow battery system (Kumamoto, [0014], Fig. 1, RF battery system 1), comprising:
a plurality of banks (Kumamoto, Fig. 1, modules 1A, …, 1N),
a power conversion device provided in each of the plurality of banks (Kumamoto, Fig. 1, converter 30a, …, 30n),
and a controller (Kumamoto, Fig. 1, control unit 10) that controls a state of charge of each of the plurality of banks by controlling the power conversion device (Kumamoto, [0039]), wherein:
each of the plurality of banks includes a battery cell (Kumamoto, Fig. 1, cell section 200a, …, 200n) that performs charging and discharging (Kumamoto, [0039]) by a supply of an electrolytic solution (Kumamoto, Fig. 1, positive electrode tank 106a, …, 106n, negative electrode tank 107a, …, 107n ),
the plurality of banks include: a plurality of first banks controlled to be in a first state of charge (Kumamoto, [0040], standby module), and one or more second banks excluding the first banks (Kumamoto, [0040], performing a charging or discharging operation),
and the controller controls a state of charge of the second bank to be a second state of charge different from the first state of charge (Kumamoto, [0040], standby vs performing a charging or discharging operation).
Regarding claim 2, Kumamoto also discloses wherein the second state of charge is different from the first state of charge by ±2% or more (Kumamoto, [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, Kumamoto further discloses wherein: the first state of charge has a range of the first state of charge defined by an upper limit and a lower limit (Kumamoto, [0071], 0 to 50%), the second state of charge has a range of the second state of charge defined by an upper limit and a lower limit (Kumamoto, [0071], 90 to 100%), and the range of the second state of charge is 30% or less of the range of the first state of charge (Kumamoto, [0071], first range is 50%, the second range is 10% (100-90) which is 30% or less of 50%).
Regarding claim 4, Kumamoto additionally discloses wherein a ratio of a number of the second banks to a total number of the plurality of banks is 30% or less (Kumamoto, [0008], [0018], none are in charge/discharge state and therefore there are zero second banks).
Regarding claim 5, Kumamoto also discloses wherein the controller controls each of the plurality of banks to include a time period set to the first state of charge (Kumamoto, [0072]) and a time period set to the second state of charge (Kumamoto, [0073]).
Regarding claim 6, Kumamoto further discloses wherein a ratio of an amount of time set to the second state of charge to a total amount of time of an amount of time set to the first state of charge and the amount of time set to the second state of charge is 30% or less (Kumamoto, [0072], 1/30 = 3.33%). The examiner notes (amount of time set to the second state of charge/ total amount of time of an amount of time set to the first state of charge/ amount of time set to the second state of charge) is just 1/ total amount of time of an amount of time set to the first state of charge.
Regarding claim 7, Kumamoto additionally discloses wherein, when a particular bank out of the plurality of first banks is caused to transition from the first state of charge to the second state of charge, the controller performs charging or discharging from the particular bank to the second bank (Kumamoto, [0067]).
Regarding claim 8, Kumamoto further discloses wherein a discharging amount or a charging amount to the plurality of first banks is zero (Kumamoto, [0020], standby module that does not perform charge and discharge operations), satisfying the limitation wherein: a ratio of a number of the second banks to a total number of the plurality of banks is represented by x, and the controller discharges or charges a particular bank out of the plurality of first banks by a value that is 1/(1-x) times or more of an average value obtained by dividing a value of a discharging amount or a charging amount to the plurality of first banks by the total number of the plurality of banks when the particular bank is caused to transition from the first state of charge to the second state of charge, as zero multiplied by any number is zero.
Regarding claim 9, Kumamoto also discloses a discharging amount or a charging amount to the plurality of first banks is zero (Kumamoto, [0020], standby module that does not perform charge and discharge operations), satisfying the claim limitation wherein: a ratio of an amount of time set to the second state of charge to a total amount of time of an amount of time set to the first state of charge and the amount of time set to the second state of charge is represented by y; and the controller discharges or charges a particular bank out of the plurality of first banks by a value that is 1/(1-y) times or more of an average value obtained by dividing a value of a discharging amount or a charging amount to the plurality of first banks by the total number of the plurality of banks when the particular bank is caused to transition from the first state of charge to the second state of charge, as zero multiplied by any number is zero.
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.
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto JP2015156266A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 14 August 2025) in view of
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto JP2015156266A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 14 August 2025) in view of Tomita US20190341641A1.
Regarding claim 10, Kumamoto does not teach wherein each of the plurality of banks has a counter that quantifies a generation amount of a side reaction product in the electrolytic solution.
Tomita teaches wherein each of the plurality of banks has a counter that quantifies a generation amount of a side reaction product in the electrolytic solution (Tomita, [0076], [0078], [0080], Fig. 4,timer 51 and means 52 and 53). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the counter of Tomita to Kumamoto thereby maintaining the electrolyte (Tomita, [0085-0087]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto JP2015156266A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 14 August 2025) in view of Tomita US20190341641A1 and further in view of Sahu US20080193828A1.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kumamoto also teaches wherein the counter quantifies the generation amount of the side reaction product in the electrolytic solution as a function of each of a value of an amount of time in each of the plurality of banks (Tomita, [0076]), but does note teach wherein the counter quantifies the generation amount of the side reaction product in the electrolytic solution as a function of each of a value of a state of charge, a temperature of the electrolytic solution.
Sahu teaches wherein the counter (Sahu, [0116], spectrophotometry apparatus) quantifies the generation amount of the side reaction product in the electrolytic solution as a function of each of a value of a state of charge, and a temperature of the electrolytic solution (Sahu, [0116]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the counter of Sahu to modified Kumamoto thereby rebalancing the electrolyte (Sahu, [0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights