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
Claims 2, 6, 10, 16-17 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “into which into a zwitterionic” in line 3 and it appears this should be changed to: “into which the zwitterionic”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 10 recite “3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane” in line 4 and this should be revised (note closing parenthesis with no opening parenthesis).
Claim 16 recites “A redox battery comprising an amphoteric ion exchange separator for a redox battery” and it is recommended to revise this as “A redox battery comprising an amphoteric ion exchange separator
Claim 17 recites “into which into the zwitterionic” in lines 2-3 and it appears this should be changed to: “into which
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Claim 21 was cancelled in the amendment filed December 26th, 2023, but added back as claim 21 in the amendment filed June 28th, 2024. Claim 21 should be cancelled and the limitations of claim 21 incorporated as claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 111354964A) and with or without Zhao et al. (attached translation of CN 111333892A) or Schubert et al. (US 20180241065).
Regarding claim 1, Han et al. discloses an amphoteric ion exchange membrane (Abstract) for a redox battery (para. [0004]) and insomuch as Han et al. does not expressly state the membrane is a separator: "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation". See MPEP 2111.02. Nevertheless, Han et al. discloses a membrane which is fully capable of functioning as a separator and moreover: This appears to be the purpose of the membrane disclosed by Han et al. (para. [0004]).
Han et al. discloses the membrane comprises a polymer matrix (para. [0001]) into which a zwitterionic functional group having a quaternary ammonium group and a sulfonic acid group is introduced (para. [0008]).
Further, Zhao et al. also discloses an amphoteric ion exchange zwitterionic membrane for a redox battery (Abstract, para. [0007]) which includes a sulfonic acid group (perfluorosulfonic acid has a sulfonic acid group, para. [0007]) and quaternary ammonium group (para. [0009]) and Zhao et al. teaches the use of the membrane as a separator (para. [0004]) or Schubert et al. discloses a redux battery (para. [0002]) and Schubert et al. teaches ion exchange membranes are used as separators in redox batteries (para. [0216]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the ion exchange membrane is a separator.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use an ion exchange membrane as a separator in a redox battery as a conventional configuration for transporting ions in the battery while keeping electrolytes separated.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 111354964A) and with or without Zhao et al. (attached translation of CN 111333892A) or Schubert et al. (US 20180241065) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kim et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20200056799A) and Jung et al. (attached translation of WO 2019098792A2).
Regarding claim 2, Han et al. does not disclose silica.
However, Kim et al. discloses a redox battery (para. [0004]) having a separator (para. [0005]) with a polymer matrix (polyolefin, Abstract) and Kim et al. further teaches using silica in the matrix (pars. [0026]-[0027]).
Likewise, Jung et al. discloses a redox battery with separation membrane (Abstract) and Jung et al. further teaches using silica (para. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the polymer matrix comprises silica into which into a zwitterionic functional group is introduced.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include silica in order to control the crossover of active material and to control the degree of penetration of the
electrolyte into the separator (Kim et al., para. [0030], Jung et al., para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Han et al. does not disclose silica.
However, Jung et al. who is relied upon to teach the use of silica as discussed for claim 2 above, further teaches wherein the silica is present in an amount of 0.5 wt % to 4 wt % with respect to a total weight of the polymer matrix (overlapping range, para. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the silica into which the zwitterionic functional group is introduced is present in an amount of 0.5 wt % to 4 wt % with respect to a total weight of the polymer matrix.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Jung et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the weight range is not disclosed in Han et al. in view of Jung et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the silica weight percent range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the separator of Han et al. with the range recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 111354964A) and with or without Zhao et al. (attached translation of CN 111333892A) or Schubert et al. (US 20180241065) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Jung et al. (attached translation of WO 2019098792A2).
Regarding claim 4, Han et al. does not appear to expressly disclose the listed compounds.
However, Jung et al. discloses a redox battery with separation membrane (Abstract) and Jung et al. further teaches using at least polyethylene and polysulfone (para. [0016]).
Moreover, Zhao et al. teaches the use of perfluorosulfonic acid in the membrane (para. [0012]) and Schubert et al. teaches at least polyester (para. [0221]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the polymer matrix comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of perfluorosulfonic acid, polyethersulfone, polyphenylene sulfide, polyester, polyether ketone, polysulfone, polyimide, polyphenylene oxide, polyolefin, and polyethylene.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material for separator membranes used in redox batteries to achieve the predictable result of facilitating separation of electrolytes and ion exchange. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 111354964A) and with or without Zhao et al. (attached translation of CN 111333892A) or Schubert et al. (US 20180241065) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Briehn et al. (US 20080286628).
Regarding claim 5, Han et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the zwitterionic functional group is prepared from a silane monomer having an amino group and a sultone monomer.
However, Briehn et al. discloses an ion-exhange membrane (proton/H+ cation, “charge conducting”, Abstract) having zwitterionic functional groups (Abstract) and Briehn et al. teaches wherein the zwitterionic functional group is prepared from a silane monomer having an amino group and a sultone monomer (para. [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Briehn et al. wherein the zwitterionic functional group is prepared from a silane monomer having an amino group and a sultone monomer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a zwitterionic functional group prepared from a silane monomer having an amino group and a sultone monomer to achieve better mechanical stability and proton conductivity (Briehn et al., para. [0021], Han et al., Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Han et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the zwitterionic functional group is prepared from a silane monomer having an amino group.
However, Briehn et al. who is relied upon to teach the zwitterionic functional group is prepared from a silane monomer having an amino group as discussed for claim 5 above, further teaches wherein the silane monomer having an amino group comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of 3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane, N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-(trimethoxysilyl)propylamine, N1-(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl) diethylenetriamine, bis[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]amine, bis(3-(methylamino)propyl)trimethoxysilane, trimethoxy[3-(methylamino)propyl]silane, (N,N-dimethylaminopropyl)trimethoxysilane, and [3-(diethylamino)propyl]trimethoxysilane (e.g., aminopropyltriethoxysilane, para. [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the silane monomer having an amino group comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of 3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane, N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-(trimethoxysilyl)propylamine, N1-(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl) diethylenetriamine, bis[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]amine, bis(3-(methylamino)propyl)trimethoxysilane, trimethoxy[3-(methylamino)propyl]silane, (N,N-dimethylaminopropyl)trimethoxysilane, and [3-(diethylamino)propyl]trimethoxysilane.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a silane monomer from the above group (such as aminopropyltriethoxysilane, Briehn et al., para. [0071]) to achieve better mechanical stability and proton conductivity (Briehn et al., para. [0021], Han et al., Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Han et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the zwitterionic functional group is prepared from a sultone monomer.
However, Briehn et al. who is relied upon to teach a sultone monomer as discussed for claim 5 above, further teaches wherein the sultone monomer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of 1,4-butane sultone and 1,3-propane sultone (1,3-propane sultone, para. [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the sultone monomer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of 1,4-butane sultone and 1,3-propane sultone.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a sultone monomer comprising 1,4-butane sultone or 1,3-propane sultone to achieve better mechanical stability and proton conductivity (Briehn et al., para. [0021], Han et al., Abstract).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 111354964A) and in further view of Kim et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20200056799A) and Jung et al. (attached translation of WO 2019098792A2) and with or without Zhao et al. (attached translation of CN 111333892A) or Schubert et al. (US 20180241065).
Regarding claim 8, Han et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a separator (amphoteric polymer electrolyte membrane, Abstract) for a redox battery (para. [0004]) comprising:
preparing a zwitterionic functional group having a quaternary ammonium group and a sulfonic acid group (para. [0008]); and introducing the zwitterionic functional group into a polymer matrix (pars. [0001] and [0008]).
Han et al. does not expressly disclose that the separator is porous.
However, Kim et al. discloses a redox battery (para. [0004]) having a separator (para. [0005]) with a polymer matrix (polyolefin, Abstract) and Kim et al. further teaches the separator is porous (Abstract).
Likewise, Jung et al. discloses a redox battery with a polymer separation membrane (Abstract) and Jung et al. further teaches the membrane is porous (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the separator is a porous separator.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a porous separator to facilitate penetration of electrolyte components (Kim et al., para. [0038]).
Assuming, arguendo, that Han et al. does not disclose the amphoteric polymer electrolyte membrane (Han et al., Abstract) is a separator; Zhao et al. also discloses an amphoteric ion exchange zwitterionic membrane for a redox battery (Abstract, para. [0007]) which includes a sulfonic acid group (perfluorosulfonic acid has a sulfonic acid group, para. [0007]) and quaternary ammonium group (para. [0009]) and Zhao et al. teaches the use of the membrane as a separator (para. [0004]) or Schubert et al. discloses a redux battery (para. [0002]) and Schubert et al. teaches ion exchange membranes are used as separators in redox batteries (para. [0216]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the ion exchange membrane is a separator.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use an ion exchange membrane as a separator in a redox battery as a conventional configuration to acheive the predictable result of transporting ions in the battery while keeping electrolytes separated.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 111354964A) and in further view of Kim et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20200056799A) and Jung et al. (attached translation of WO 2019098792A2) and with or without Zhao et al. (attached translation of CN 111333892A) or Schubert et al. (US 20180241065) as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Briehn et al. (US 20080286628).
Regarding claim 9, Han et al. does not expressly disclose wherein in the step of preparing the zwitterionic functional group, the zwitterionic functional group is prepared by reacting a silane monomer having an amino group with a sultone monomer.
However, Briehn et al. discloses an ion-exhange membrane (proton/H+ cation, “charge conducting”, Abstract) having zwitterionic functional groups (Abstract) and Briehn et al. teaches wherein the zwitterionic functional group is prepared by reacting a silane monomer having an amino group and a sultone monomer (para. [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein, in the step of preparing the zwitterionic functional group, the zwitterionic functional group is prepared by reacting a silane monomer having an amino group with a sultone monomer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a zwitterionic functional group prepared by reacting a silane monomer having an amino group and a sultone monomer to achieve better mechanical stability and proton conductivity (Briehn et al., para. [0021], Han et al., Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Han et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the zwitterionic functional group is prepared by reacting a silane monomer having an amino group with a sultone monomer.
However, Briehn et al. who is relied upon to teach the zwitterionic functional group is prepared by reacting a silane monomer having an amino group as discussed for claim 9 above, further teaches wherein the silane monomer having an amino group comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of 3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane, N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-(trimethoxysilyl)propylamine, N1-(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl) diethylenetriamine, bis[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]amine, bis(3-(methylamino)propyl)trimethoxysilane, trimethoxy[3-(methylamino)propyl]silane, (N,N-dimethylaminopropyl)trimethoxysilane, and [3-(diethylamino)propyl]trimethoxysilane (e.g., aminopropyltriethoxysilane, para. [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the silane monomer having an amino group comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of 3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane, N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-(trimethoxysilyl)propylamine, N1-(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl) diethylenetriamine, bis[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]amine, bis(3-(methylamino)propyl)trimethoxysilane, trimethoxy[3-(methylamino)propyl]silane, (N,N-dimethylaminopropyl)trimethoxysilane, and [3-(diethylamino)propyl]trimethoxysilane.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a silane monomer from the above group (such as aminopropyltriethoxysilane, Briehn et al., para. [0071]) to achieve better mechanical stability and proton conductivity (Briehn et al., para. [0021], Han et al., Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Han et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the zwitterionic functional group is prepared by reacting a sultone monomer.
However, Briehn et al. who is relied upon to teach a sultone monomer as discussed above for claim 9, further teaches wherein the sultone monomer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of 1,4-butane sultone and 1,3-propane sultone (1,3-propane sultone, para. [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the sultone monomer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of 1,4-butane sultone and 1,3-propane sultone.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a sultone monomer comprising 1,4-butane sultone or 1,3-propane sultone for the reaction in order to achieve better mechanical stability and proton conductivity (Briehn et al., para. [0021], Han et al., Abstract).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 111354964A) and in further view of Kim et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20200056799A) and Jung et al. (attached translation of WO 2019098792A2) and with or without Zhao et al. (attached translation of CN 111333892A) or Schubert et al. (US 20180241065) as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Briehn et al. (US 20080286628) and Nguyen et al. (US 20230037819) or Brien et al. and Schlenoff (attached WO 2007146680A1).
Regarding claim 12, Han et al. does not expressly disclose silica.
However, Briehn et al. discloses an ion-exhange membrane (proton/H+ cation, “charge conducting”, Abstract) having zwitterionic functional groups (Abstract) and Briehn et al. further teaches reacting the silane monomer with silica (particles are reacted with the amino-functional silane, para. [0034], where the particles may be silica: silicon dioxide, para. [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the silane monomer is reacted with silica.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to react silane with silica to form a zwitterionic functional group (pars. [0001] and [0034]) in order to achieve better mechanical stability and proton conductivity (Briehn et al., para. [0021], Han et al., Abstract).
Insomuch as the above cited references do not expressly disclose the introducing the zwitterionic functional group further comprises reacting the zwitterionic functional group with silica to prepare silica having the zwitterionic functional group; Nguyen et al. discloses a method which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of forming zwitterionic functional groups on silica (para. [0052]) and Nguyen et al. teaches first reacting the silane and sultone to form the zwitterionic functional group (para. [0097]) and then reacting the zwitterionic functional group with silica to prepare silica having the zwitterionic functional group (para. [0098]) or Schlenoff discloses a method which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of forming zwitterionic functional groups on silica (Abstract) and Schlenoff further teaches first reacting the silane and sultone to form the zwitterionic functional group and then reacting the zwitterionic functional group with silica to prepare silica having the zwitterionic functional group (Example 2, pages 29-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the introducing the zwitterionic functional group further comprises reacting the zwitterionic functional group with silica to prepare silica having the zwitterionic functional group (i.e. reacting the zwitterionic functional group with silica after first forming the zwitterionic functional group by reacting the silane and sultone as taught by Nguyen et al. or Schlenoff).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of Han et al. in view of Briehn et al. by reversing the order of process steps to achieve the result of producing silica having the zwitterionic functional group. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959), In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) and/or In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930).
Regarding claim 13, Han et al. does not disclose hydrolyzing and condensing the zwitterionic functional group and silica
However, Briehn et al., Nguyen et al. and/or Schlenoff all disclose wherein the preparation of the silica having the zwitterionic functional group is carried out by hydrolyzing and condensing the zwitterionic functional group and silica, or self-condensing the zwitterionic functional group (Briehn et al., para. [0091], Nguyen et al., para. [0054], Schlenoff, page 30, lines 9-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the preparation of the silica having the zwitterionic functional group is carried out by hydrolyzing and condensing the zwitterionic functional group and silica, or self-condensing the zwitterionic functional group.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a zwitterionic functional group attached to silica using hydrolysis and condensation reactions in order to achieve better mechanical stability and proton conductivity (Briehn et al., para. [0021], Han et al., Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 12 disclose
wherein the introducing is carried out by introducing the silica having the zwitterionic functional group into the polymer matrix (Briehn et al., Abstract, pars. [0144]-[0145]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 111354964A) and in further view of Kim et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20200056799A) and Jung et al. (attached translation of WO 2019098792A2) and with or without Zhao et al. (attached translation of CN 111333892A) or Schubert et al. (US 20180241065) as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Prifti et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Membranes for Redox Flow Battery Applications”) and Wang et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Nafion/TiO2 hybrid membrane fabricated via hydrothermal
method for vanadium redox battery”).
Regarding claim 15, the above-cited references for claim 8 do not expressly disclose wherein the introducing is carried out by reacting the zwitterionic functional group with the polymer matrix through hydrothermal synthesis.
However, Prifti et al. discloses a redox battery having a separator (Abstract) with a polymer matrix (such as Nafion, section 5.3.2) having silane modified inorganic oxide nanoparticles (such as silica or titania, section 5.3.2) where the membrane is prepared using hydrothermal synthesis (hydrothermal method, section 5.3.2) and Wang et al. likewise discloses a redox battery having a separator with a polymer matrix (Abstract) and teaches hydrothermal synthesis (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the introducing is carried out by reacting the zwitterionic functional group with the polymer matrix through hydrothermal synthesis.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use hydrothermal synthesis in order to reduce vanadium ion cross-over (Wang et al., Abstract).
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 111354964A) in view of Zhao et al. (attached translation of CN 111333892A) or Schubert et al. (US 20180241065).
Regarding claim 16, Han et al. discloses a redox battery (para. [0004]) comprising an amphoteric ion exchange membrane for a redox battery and insomuch as Han et al. does not disclose the membrane is a separator (Han et al. appears to describe it as a separator, para. [0004]); Zhao et al. also discloses an amphoteric ion exchange zwitterionic membrane for a redox battery (Abstract, para. [0007]) which includes a sulfonic acid group (perfluorosulfonic acid has a sulfonic acid group, para. [0007]) and a quaternary ammonium group (para. [0009]) and Zhao et al. teaches the use of the membrane as a separator (para. [0004]) or Schubert et al. discloses a redux battery (para. [0002]) and Schubert et al. teaches ion exchange membranes are used as separators in redox batteries (para. [0216]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the ion exchange membrane is a separator.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use an ion exchange membrane as a separator in a redox battery as a conventional configuration to achieve the predictable result of transporting ions in the battery and keeping electrolytes separated.
Han et al. further discloses the amphoteric ion exchange membrane/separator comprises a polymer matrix (para. [0001]) into which a zwitterionic functional group having a quaternary ammonium group and a sulfonic acid group is introduced (para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 21, Han et al. discloses wherein the redox battery is a redox flow battery (para. [0004]) or a redox flowless battery (at least a redox flow battery).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 111354964A) in view of Zhao et al. (attached translation of CN 111333892A) or Schubert et al. (US 20180241065) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Kim et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20200056799A) and Jung et al. (attached translation of WO 2019098792A2).
Regarding claim 17, Han et al. does not disclose silica.
However, Kim et al. discloses a redox battery (para. [0004]) having a separator (para. [0005]) with a polymer matrix (polyolefin, Abstract) and Kim et al. further teaches using silica in the matrix (pars. [0026]-[0027]).
Likewise, Jung et al. discloses a redox battery with separation membrane (Abstract) and Jung et al. further teaches using silica (para. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the polymer matrix comprises silica into which into the zwitterionic functional group is introduced.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include silica in order to control the crossover of active material and to control the degree of penetration of the
electrolyte into the separator (Kim et al., para. [0030], Jung et al., para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 18, Han et al. does not disclose silica.
However, Jung et al. further discloses wherein the silica is present in an amount of 0.5 wt % to 4 wt % with respect to a total weight of the polymer matrix (overlapping range, para. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the silica into which the zwitterionic functional group is introduced is present in an amount of 0.5 wt % to 4 wt % with respect to a total weight of the polymer matrix.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Jung et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the weight range is not disclosed in Han et al. in view of Jung et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the silica weight percent range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the separator of Han et al. with the range recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 111354964A) in view of Zhao et al. (attached translation of CN 111333892A) or Schubert et al. (US 20180241065) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Jung et al. (attached translation of WO 2019098792A2).
Regarding claim 19, Han et al. does not appear to expressly disclose the listed compounds.
However, Jung et al. discloses a redox battery with a separation membrane (Abstract) and Jung et al. further teaches using at least polyethylene and polysulfone (para. [0016]).
Moreover, Zhao et al. teaches the use of perfluorosulfonic acid in the membrane (para. [0012]) and Schubert et al. teaches at least polyester (para. [0221]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the polymer matrix comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of perfluorosulfonic acid, polyethersulfone, polyphenylene sulfide, polyester, polyether ketone, polysulfone, polyimide, polyphenylene oxide, polyolefin, and polyethylene.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material for separator membranes used in redox batteries to achieve the predictable result of facilitating separation of electrolytes and ion exchange. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., supra.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 111354964A) in view of Zhao et al. (attached translation of CN 111333892A) or Schubert et al. (US 20180241065) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Kim et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20200056799A) or McVerry et al. (US 20180159106).
Regarding claim 20, Han et al. does not disclose the redox battery is a zinc-halogen redox battery.
However, Kim et al. discloses a redox battery (para. [0004]) having a separator (para. [0005]) with a polymer matrix (polyolefin, Abstract) and Kim et al. further teaches the redox battery is a zinc-halogen redox battery (para. [0062]).
Likewise, McVerry et al. discloses a redox battery (para. [0166]) having a separator with a polymer matrix (para. [0030]) wherein the redox battery is a zinc-halogen redox battery (zinc-bromine, para. [0166]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Han et al. wherein the redox battery is a zinc-halogen redox battery.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a zinc-halogen battery in order to allow for long cycle life, non-flammable electrolytes and lower cost.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yokoyama et al. (US 2017214019) discloses preparing a membrane using a porous substrate and hydrothermal treatment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights