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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder (a nonce term) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. In addition, claim 20 uses the word “means” coupled with functional language and is likewise interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Such claim limitations are:
– “first micro pumping system … configured to supply the positive liquid electrolyte …” and “second micro pumping system … configured to supply the negative liquid electrolyte …” (claim 16);
– “battery management system … configured to cause the flow circulation system to supply … and simultaneously supply an electrical current …” (claim 16);
– “power management unit,” “interphase management unit,” and “fluidic management unit” (claims 18, 26, and 29);
– “flow regulating means … configured to regulate the fluid electrolyte flow rate exiting the battery reactor” (claim 20).
Because these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that performs the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following is the corresponding structure:
– For the “first micro pumping system” and “second micro pumping system”: one or more micropumps, (specification, pg. 8, lines 10-15), and equivalents thereof.
– For the “battery management system”: a general-purpose computer, i.e., a central processing unit (CPU), a semiconductor-based microprocessor, a programmable PLC, a graphics processing unit (GPU), or a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) that retrieves and executes instructions stored on a machine-readable storage medium (specification, pg. 5, lines 15-24),
– For the “power management unit,” “interphase management unit,” and “fluidic management unit”: the general-purpose computer of the battery management system (specification, pg. 6, lines 14-22).
– For the “flow regulating means”: microvalves, (specification, pg. 7, lines 31-36), and equivalents thereof.
With respect to the “battery management system” (claim 16) and the “power management unit,” “interphase management unit,” and “fluidic management unit” (claims 18, 26, and 29), the specification discloses these limitations as functions performed by a general-purpose computer (specification, pg. 5-7). For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation, the corresponding structure must include the algorithm that the computer performs to accomplish the claimed function; disclosure of a general-purpose computer alone is not sufficient. See MPEP 2181, subsection II.B. The definiteness of these limitations is addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below.
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 16-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, the “battery management system” of claims 16-33 (dependent on the independent claims) and the “power management unit,” “interphase management unit,” and “fluidic management unit” of claims 18, 26, and 29 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). These are computer-implemented limitations, disclosed as functions performed by a general-purpose computer (specification pg. 5-7).
The specification discloses that the battery management system, and its power, interphase, and fluidic management units, is a CPU, microprocessor, PLC, GPU, or FPGA that executes instructions to perform the recited functions (specification, pg. 5-7), but does not disclose the algorithm, i.e., the specific steps or procedure, by which the state of charge is evaluated, the stoichiometric flow rate setpoint is calculated, the flow rates at the inlets and outlets are determined, or the operation mode is determined. Because the specification discloses only a general-purpose computer and the functions to be achieved, without disclosing the corresponding algorithm, the metes and bounds of these limitations cannot be determined.
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.
Claims 16-19, 22, and 24-30, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Jin Wook Lee, Marc-Antoni Goulet, and Erik Kjeang, "Microfluidic redox battery," Lab on a Chip, 2013, vol. 13, pp. 2504-2507) in view of Pellegri et al. (US 6,475,661 B1).
Claim 16: Lee discloses a redox microfluidic energy storage system (a membraneless microfluidic redox battery) comprising a battery reactor comprising a membraneless battery microcell, the battery microcell comprising a positive electrode half-microcell housing a positive electrode and a negative electrode half-microcell housing a negative electrode, the positive electrode half-microcell and the negative electrode half-microcell being fluidly connected and located opposite each other (two flow-through porous electrodes positioned in parallel and contacted respectively by the positive/catholyte and negative/anolyte streams; abstract; Fig. 1; p. 2505). Lee further discloses a flow circulation system comprising a first micro pumping system and a second micro pumping system that supply a positive liquid electrolyte and a negative liquid electrolyte, respectively (a dual syringe pump driving the two streams; p. 2505-2506), at a flow rate such that the positive and negative liquid electrolytes are under a laminar flow regime inside the battery microcell, the electrolytes being in direct contact and creating an interphase therebetween for transferring ion charge carriers between the liquid electrolytes (co-laminar flow at low Reynolds number with minimal convective mixing, eliminating the need for a membrane; abstract; p. 2504-2505). Lee further discloses that the system supplies the liquid electrolytes to the battery reactor and simultaneously supplies an electrical current through the electrodes to electrically charge the system, and supplies the electrolytes such that an electrical current is released through the electrodes to electrically discharge the system (in situ charging at an applied potential of 1.7 V and subsequent discharging over a complete charge/discharge cycle; abstract; Fig. 4; p. 2506), and that storage tanks are provided for the electrolytes (p. 2504).
Lee does not expressly disclose (i) a plurality of membraneless battery microcells connected to each other, (ii) a positive electrolyte tank and a separate negative electrolyte tank as recited, or (iii) a battery management system.
Pellegri discloses a redox flow battery system comprising a battery reactor comprising a plurality of battery cells connected to each other, each cell comprising a positive electrode half-cell housing a positive electrode and a negative electrode half-cell housing a negative electrode located opposite each other (a stack of a plurality of cells in electrical series, with positive and negative electrodes in opposed flow compartments; Figs. 1-2 and 5; col. 8, lines 45-65). Pellegri further discloses a positive electrolyte tank storing a positive liquid electrolyte and a negative electrolyte tank storing a negative liquid electrolyte (a separate catholyte tank 2 and anolyte tank 6; col. 8, lines 4-16), a first micro pumping system supplying the positive electrolyte from the positive tank and a second micro pumping system supplying the negative electrolyte from the negative tank (a dedicated pump 3 in the positive circuit and pump 7 in the negative circuit; col. 8, lines 4-16), and a battery management system configured to cause the flow circulation system to supply the electrolytes and to control charging and discharging (a self-regulation system that monitors the state of charge and drives electrovalves to regulate electrolyte flow; col. 12, lines 39-60).
Lee and Pellegri are analogous art and are related to redox flow batteries. Lee teaches that the membraneless co-laminar architecture can be operated as a rechargeable battery and that storage tanks may be provided for the electrolytes, and Pellegri teaches the conventional balance-of-plant for a rechargeable redox flow battery, including a plurality of connected cells to provide the required capacity, separate positive and negative electrolyte tanks, a dedicated pump for each electrolyte circuit, and a management system that regulates flow according to the state of charge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the membraneless microfluidic redox battery with a plurality of connected microcells, separate positive and negative electrolyte tanks, a dedicated micro pumping system for each electrolyte, and a management system controlling the electrolyte supply and current, in order to increase storage capacity and to control charging and discharging of the system.
Claim 17: Pellegri discloses that the management system adjusts the electrolyte flow rates within the battery reactor based on the state of charge and based on a value of a current circulating through the electrodes and a power to be delivered or received (the self-regulation system monitors the redox potential and battery voltage, which indicate the state of charge, and drives the electrovalves to regulate the flow rate according to the load requirements; col. 12, lines 30-67).
Claim 18: Pellegri discloses that the management system determines whether the demanded power can be delivered or stored, determines the electrolyte flow rates, and operates the pumps and valves to reach those flow rates (col. 12, lines 30-67). Configuring the management system as discrete power, interphase, and fluidic management units performing these respective functions is an obvious partitioning of the control functionality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the management system as separate power, interphase, and fluidic management units in order to organize the control functions. This claim is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth above.
Claim 19: Lee discloses that the opposed electrode half-microcells define a reaction microchannel therebetween through which the positive and negative electrolytes flow in parallel in a laminar fashion (the central channel in which the two streams flow in a symmetric, co-laminar manner; p. 2505).
Claim 22: Lee discloses supplying the electrolytes at flow rates of 1 to 10 µL per minute, which fall within the claimed range of 0 to 1000 µL per minute (p. 2505-2506).
Claim 24: Lee discloses that the battery reactor and the flow circulation conduits are integrated into a same main body (a single-layer, integrated microfluidic chip; abstract; p. 2504-2505).
Claim 25: Lee discloses a method for charging the system comprising supplying, by the first micro pumping system, the positive electrolyte to the positive electrode half-microcell; simultaneously supplying, by the second micro pumping system, the negative electrolyte to the negative electrode half-microcell; applying an electrical current through the electrodes while the electrolytes flow in a laminar regime such that redox reactions take place at the electrode surfaces and ion charge carriers are transferred between the electrolytes to compensate changes in the oxidation state of the active species, creating a difference in chemical potential; and storing the electrolytes (in situ charging at 1.7 V with dual-syringe-pump supply, the charged product electrolytes being collected and stored; Fig. 4; p. 2506). Pellegri teaches performing this operation with a plurality of connected cells and separate positive and negative electrolyte tanks (col. 8, lines 4-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the charging method with a plurality of connected microcells and separate positive and negative electrolyte tanks, for the reasons given for claim 16.
Claim 26: Pellegri discloses that the management system determines the feasibility of a flow rate setpoint at which the requested power can be stored, determines the corresponding flow rates, and determines the operation mode of the flow circulation system to reach those flow rates (col. 12, lines 30-67). Implementing these functions in separate power, interphase, and fluidic management units is an obvious partitioning of the control functionality, as set forth for claim 18 above. This claim is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth above.
Claim 27: Lee discloses monitoring the state of charge and carrying out the charging until a higher state of charge is reached (the state of charge is monitored and raised to 45%, with levels up to 70% observed; Fig. 4; p. 2506), and Pellegri discloses operating until the storage capacity or load requirement is met (col. 12, lines 39-52).
Claim 28: Lee discloses a method for discharging the system comprising supplying the positive electrolyte to the positive electrode half-microcell with a difference in chemical potential existing between the electrolytes, simultaneously supplying the negative electrolyte to the negative electrode half-microcell such that redox reactions take place and an electrical current is released, and storing the electrolytes (discharge mode at 1.0 V using high-state-of-charge electrolytes, with current released and the electrolytes recirculated/collected; Fig. 4; p. 2505-2506). Pellegri teaches performing this operation with a plurality of connected cells and separate tanks (col. 8, lines 4-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the discharging method with a plurality of connected microcells and separate positive and negative electrolyte tanks, for the reasons given for claim 16.
Claim 29: The limitations are met for the reasons given for claim 26. This claim is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth above.
Claim 30: Lee discloses monitoring the state of charge and carrying out the discharging until a lower state of charge is reached (discharge returning the electrolytes to approximately the initial 10% state of charge; Fig. 4; p. 2506), and Pellegri discloses stopping the flows according to the load requirement (col. 12, lines 39-52).
Claim 32: Lee discloses monitoring the state of charge and completing the charge cycle (Fig. 4; p. 2506), and Pellegri discloses carrying out the operation until the power request is satisfied (col. 12, lines 39-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out the charging until the power request for storing energy has finished, for the reasons given for claims 16 and 27.
Claim 33: Lee discloses monitoring the state of charge and completing the discharge cycle (Fig. 4; p. 2506), and Pellegri discloses carrying out the operation until the power request is satisfied (col. 12, lines 39-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out the discharging until the power request for delivering energy has finished, for the reasons given for claims 16 and 30.
Claims 20, 21, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Pellegri, and further in view of Tice et al. (US 2013/0313452 A1).
Claim 20: Lee in view of Pellegri discloses flow regulating means arranged in the conduits between the outlet of the battery reactor and the respective tank, configured to regulate the electrolyte flow rate exiting the reactor (Pellegri, electrovalves SV-1 and SV-2 arranged in the discharge lines between the reactor and the tanks; Figs. 7-9; col. 12, lines 40-67). As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, the “flow regulating means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for performing the recited function is a microvalve (specification, pg. 7, lines 31-36), and equivalents thereof. Lee in view of Pellegri does not expressly disclose that the flow regulating means is a microvalve. Tice discloses a pneumatic microvalve used to regulate and shut off fluid flow through a microfluidic channel, in which an expandable pneumatic valve portion of a fluidic control line is positioned relative to the channel such that expansion of the pneumatic valve portion "restricts fluid flow through the fluidic channel" (abstract; [0046]; [0052]; Fig. 10; claim 1). It would have been obvious to implement the flow regulating means of Lee in view of Pellegri as the microvalve of Tice, in order to regulate the electrolyte flow at the microscale of the co-laminar microfluidic reactor.
Claim 21: Lee in view of Pellegri and Tice discloses the flow regulating means of claim 20, as set forth above, and Tice discloses that the flow regulating means comprises a pneumatic microvalve ([0052]; Fig. 10). Tice further discloses that the pneumatic microvalve is actuated by a pressure source in fluid communication with the fluidic control line, the pressure source being a pressurized gas source such as a compressor ([0045]; claim 7), i.e., a pneumatic compressor. Because claim 21 requires "at least one of" a piezoelectric microvalve and a pneumatic microvalve, the pneumatic microvalve of Tice actuated by a pneumatic compressor meets the claim. It would have been obvious to implement the flow regulating means of Lee in view of Pellegri as the pneumatically actuated microvalve of Tice, in order to regulate the electrolyte flow at the microscale.
Claim 31: Pellegri discloses regulating the electrolyte flow rate exiting the reactor by adjusting the passageway of the electrovalves to balance the electrolyte condition and maintain operation (col. 12, lines 39-52), and teaches that the electrolyte condition, including the standard cell potential, varies with the state of charge (col. 3, lines 43-60), the electrolyte viscosity likewise varying with the state of charge as the active species are converted. Adjusting the valve passageway to compensate for a difference between the two electrolytes would keep the co-laminar interphase (Lee) centered and thereby maintain reactant separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to regulate the flow rate exiting the reactor by adjusting the conduit passageway to compensate for a viscosity difference between the electrolytes and thereby balance the interphase, in order to maintain separation of the co-laminar streams.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Pellegri, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mosso et al. (US 2014/0057141).
Claim 23: Lee in view of Pellegri discloses the redox microfluidic energy storage system of claim 16, including the first and second micro pumping systems and feedback control of the electrolyte flow rate (Pellegri, col. 12, lines 39-52), as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose a first inlet flow sensor and a first outlet flow sensor in the first micro pumping system and a second inlet flow sensor and a second outlet flow sensor in the second micro pumping system that measure the flow rate at the inlet and outlet of the battery reactor. Mosso discloses a redox flow battery system having a first electrolyte flow path and a second electrolyte flow path, each having an inlet to and an outlet from a cell block, with a first set of sensors (S1, S3) placed on the inlet side and a second set of sensors (S2, S4) placed on the outlet side of the electrolyte flow paths, Mosso describing that "the sensors S1, S2, S3, S4 may be flow rate sensors" that provide flow rate signals to a controller which balances the electrolyte flow rates (Fig. 5; [0068]-[0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second micro pumping systems of Lee in view of Pellegri with the inlet-side and outlet-side flow rate sensors taught by Mosso, in order to measure the electrolyte flow rates and carry out the flow-rate control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATEF A SHAT whose telephone number is (571)270-0364. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/ATEF A SHAT/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights