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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US-20210320305-A1 (Herein, “Roberts”), and further in view of US-20210135246-A1 (Herein, “Millard” and KR-20220067124-A1 (Herein, “Hoon”).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts teaches a size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system for mitigating water/hydrated ion cluster migration, comprising:
anolyte (Roberts, (0011), "anolyte");
a catholyte ((0011), "catholyte");
an anode ((0011), "the anode") configured to be in contact with the anolyte (implied, (0011), "circulating the anolyte through the anode");
a cathode ((0011), "cathode") configured to be in contact with the catholyte (implied, (0011), "circulating the catholyte through the cathode"); and
a separator interposed between the anode and the cathode ((0011), "A separator is between the anode and cathode").
Roberts is silent on wherein the wherein the separator comprises an ionic-molecular sieve membrane.
Millard teaches wherein the separator comprises an ionic-molecular sieve membrane (Millard, (0083), "porous separator")
offering precise size-sieving effects to prevent migration of water/hydrated ion clusters ((0083), "porous membrane to substantially prevent the crossover of active materials...the hydrodynamic radius can be about 10% greater than the average pore size").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the separator of Roberts with the porous separator of Millard because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Modified Roberts is silent on stable cycling of the size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system.
Hoon teaches where polyiodide (in the disclosure of modified Roberts, see Roberts (0024), (0028)) allows charging to higher state-of-charge ((Hoon), (0173), Fig. 1, 3, 4).
Therefore, in light of cycling evidence related to the battery of modified Roberts, introduced by Hoon, absent pervasive circumstances, it is the Examiner's position that the disclosure of modified Roberts will have the same or substantially similar stable cycling at the claimed state-of-charge over the claimed number of cycles and at the claimed areal and volumetric capacities since the structure provided by the disclosure of modified Roberts is substantially the same or similar to the structure claimed in claim 1 of the instant disclosure which the claimed limitations rely upon.
Regarding claim 2, modified Roberts teaches the size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system of claim 1, wherein the cathode and/or anode comprises carbon felt (Roberts, (0021), (0030), claim 7, claim 26) but is silent on wherein:
the cathode comprises a carbon felt and
the anode comprises a carbon felt.
Hoon teaches wherein the electrodes of the battery used for the positive electrode (cathode) and negative electrode (anode) are carbon felt electrodes (Hoon, (0113)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the electrodes of modified Roberts with the electrodes of Hoon because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 6, modified Roberts teaches the size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system of claim 1, wherein
the electrolytes on the cathode side are flowed by a peristaltic pump (Robeerts, (0064)), and
the electrolytes on the anode side are flowed by a peristaltic pump (Roberts, (0064)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Roberts teaches the size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system of claim 1, wherein
the ionic-molecular sieve membrane has a pore size of 0.001 nm to 100 nm (Millard [introduced in claim 1 to teach a porous separator], (0083)).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the disclosed pore size range of Millard with the porous separator of modified Roberts.
Regarding claim 8, modified Roberts teaches the size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system of claim 1, wherein
the ionic-molecular sieve membrane has a thickness of less that 50 μm (Millard [introduced in claim 1 to teach a porous separator], (0085), "a current efficiency of greater than 99.5% when the separator has a thickness of less than about 50 micrometers").
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the disclosed membrane thickness range of Millard with the porous separator of modified Roberts.
Regarding claim 9, modified Roberts teaches the size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system of claim 1, wherein
the anolyte is disposed in a tank (Roberts, (0027), (22)) or
the catholyte is disposed in a tank (Roberts, (0027), (18)).
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Roberts as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US-20220085401-A1 (Herein, “Lu”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Roberts teaches the size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system of claim 2, wherein
the carbon felt has
a thickness of 2-5 mm (Hoon, (0113), "a positive electrode and a negative electrode with a thickness of 4 mm to 5 mm may be compressed until a thickness of 2 mm to 3 mm").
Modified Roberts teaches wherein the electrode active area (comprised of the carbon felt introduced in claim 2), has a geometric area restricted to 0.5 squared cm due to current constraints of the activation system (Roberts, (0025)).
Hoon teaches increasing carbon felt surface area for improvement of charging/discharging performance and reaction activity (Hoon, (0115)).
Therefore, absent pervasive circumstances, it is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the instant disclosure would have been motivated to increase the geometric area of the carbon felt of modified Roberts such that it falls within the claimed range as claimed in claim 3.
Applicant is further encouraged to see related art Lu US-20220085401-A1, (0057) for an example of a larger 3x4 squared centimeter geometric area carbon electrode.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US-20210184233-A1 (Herein, “Li”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Roberts teaches the size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system of claim 1, wherein the catholyte comprises 1 M potassium iodide (Roberts, (0065)) and 0.5 M zinc bromide (Roberts, (0065)).
However, modified Roberts is silent on the catholyte comprising potassium iodide and zinc bromide in the claimed concentrations of claim 4.
Li teaches wherein the catholyte comprises 6 M potassium iodide and 3 M zinc bromide (Li, (0050), Example 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the concentrations of potassium iodide and zinc bromide of modified Roberts with those of Li because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US-20210184233-A1 (Herein, “Li”) and US-4485154 (Herein, “Remick”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Roberts teaches the size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system of claim 1, wherein the anolyte comprises 1 M potassium chloride (Roberts, (0065)) and 0.5 M zinc bromide (Roberts, (0065)).
However, modified Roberts is silent on the anolyte comprising potassium chloride and zinc bromide in the claimed concentrations of claim 5.
Li teaches wherein the anolyte comprises 1-2 M potassium chloride (Li, (0009)) and 3 M zinc bromide (Li, (0050), Example 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the concentrations of potassium chloride and zinc bromide of modified Roberts with those of Li because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Remick further teaches wherein the anolyte comprises 1-5 M potassium chloride (Remick; Column 5, Lines 8-9).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the disclosed concentration range of potassium chloride of Remick with the battery system of modified Roberts.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu.
Regarding claim 10, modified Roberts teaches the size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the cathode uses graphite felt as the current collector.
Lu teaches wherein the cathode uses a graphite felt electrode (Lu, (0038)). The Examiner notes that the current collector is typically a component of the electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the current collector of modified Roberts with the current collector of Lu because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 11, modified Roberts teaches the size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the anode uses graphite felt as the current collector.
Lu teaches wherein the anode uses a graphite felt electrode (Lu, (0038)). The Examiner notes that the current collector is typically a component of the electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the current collector of modified Roberts with the current collector of Lu because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US-20180331363-A1 (Herein, “Winsberg”), CN-10653209 (Herein, “Jian”), and Hoon.
Regarding claim 12, modified Roberts teaches the size-sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system of claim 1, but is silent on further comprising:
a stainless-steel endplate,
a PVC chamber,
a PTFE gasket,
a PTFE pad,
a PTFE tube and
a carbon plate
Modified Roberts teaches that the cell is made out of PTFE (Roberts, (0064)). Therefore, absent pervasive circumstances, it is the Examiner's position that modified Roberts implies further comprising a PTFE gasket, a PTFE pad, and a PTFE tub since a gasket, pad, and tubing are common components of a cell (Jian, (0028), (0043), (0054)).
Winsberg teaches wherein the cathode (Winsberg, (0138)) and anode ((0141)) cells comprise stainless-steel. Winsberg further teaches PVC ((0129), "polyvinyl chloride") in the membrane. Therefore, absent pervasive circumstances, it is the Examiner's position that Winsberg implies further comprising a stainless-steel endplate and PVC chamber since endplates and chambers are common components of a cell (Jian, (0028), (0054))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the endplate and chamber of modified Roberts with the stainless-steel endplate and PVC chamber of Winsberg because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Hoon teaches a carbon bipolar plate (Hoon, (0147), "bipolar plate includes ... a carbon material type").
Hoon teaches use of a carbon plate reduces costs and additionally improves corrosion resistance to an electrolyte ((0147)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing of the instant disclosure to modify the disclose of modified Roberts by further comprising a carbon plate.
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR-102489785-B1.
Regarding claim 13, modified Roberts teaches the size-sieving sieving enhanced zinc-iodine flow battery system of claim 1, but is silent on the battery system delivering a low self-discharge rate with the required conditions of claim 13.
KR-102489785-B1 teaches that the discharge rate and output may be improved by lowering precipitation of iodine molecules ((0013)-(0014)) in zinc bromide battery systems ((0051)).
Therefore, in light of discharge evidence related to the battery of modified Roberts, introduced by KR-102489785-B1, absent pervasive circumstances, it is the Examiner's position that the disclosure of modified Roberts would have the same or substantially similar discharge properties as those of the instant disclosure since the structure provided by the disclosure of modified Roberts is substantially the same or similar to the structure claimed in claim 1 of the instant disclosure which the claimed limitations in claim 13 rely upon.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Bhavaraju US-20140065456-A1, Li-2 US-20150147673-A1, Wang US-11043686-B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN M ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9302. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM U.S. EST.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/E.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
