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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vejlgaard (US 2024/0213503 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Vejlgaard teaches a process for replenishing an on-board power source for a propulsion system on a vehicle such as a watercraft (method 400, Vejlgaard [88]), the power source comprising a first reservoir holding an anolyte and a second reservoir holding a catholyte (220a, 220b Vejlgaard Fig. 1), the process comprising:
pumping the anolyte out of the first reservoir and the catholyte out of the second reservoir into a shoreside series of one or more interconnected stacks (Vejlgaard [88]),
each stack comprising at least one cell comprising a pair of half-cell compartments (133a and 133b, Vejlgaard Fig. 2) separated from each other by a porous or ion selective membrane through which ions flow during a redox reaction (134, Vejlgaard Fig. 2);
applying a current between a first electrode in a first of the half-cell compartments and a second electrode in a second of the half-cell compartments (charging the electrolyte, Vejlgaard [88]); and
returning the anolyte to the first reservoir and the catholyte to the second reservoir (Vejlgaard [88]).
Regarding claim 6, Vejlgaard teaches all features of claim 5, as described above. Vejlgaard further teaches the process comprising at least two shoreside interconnected stacks (Vejlgaard [89]).
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vejlgaard (US 2024/0213503 A1) in view of McCoy (US 2002/0076581 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vejlgaard teaches a system for replenishing an on-board power source for a propulsion system on a vehicle such as a watercraft (Vejlgaard Fig. 1), the power source comprising a first reservoir holding an anolyte and a second reservoir holding a catholyte, the system comprising:
a shoreside series of one or more interconnected stacks (flow battery 110, Vejlgaard Fig. 2)
each stack comprising at least one cell divided into a first half-cell compartment and a second half-cell compartment (133a and 133b, Vejlgaard Fig. 2) by a porous or ion selective membrane through which ions flow during a redox reaction (134, Vejlgaard Fig. 2), the at least one cell comprising a pair of electrodes, a first one of the electrodes in the first half-cell compartment and a second one of the electrodes in the second half-cell compartment (132a and 132b, Vejlgaard Fig. 2);
and a hydraulic circuit for circulating the anolyte from the first reservoir into the first half- cell compartment of the at least one cell and back into the reservoir tank and for circulating the catholyte from the second reservoir into the second half-cell compartment of the at least one cell and back into the second reservoir (180a, 180b Vejlgaard Fig. 1, [88]);
a shoreside source of electricity (30, Vejlgaard Fig. 1), wherein applying power from the source of electricity between the electrodes while operating the hydraulic circuit charges the anolyte and the catholyte (Vejlgaard [88])
Vejlgaard teaches that the source of electricity is any “suitable power supply” (Vejlgaard [66]). However, Vejlgaard does not explicitly teach a DC electricity source.
McCoy teaches a system for recharging electrolyte fluids that have been removed from a vehicle using stationary “charging batteries” that are provided at service stations, wherein the electrolyte fluids are charged using an electric current (McCoy [3], [8]). McCoy further teaches that a DC electricity source is suitable for performing this recharging process (McCoy [28]).
Since Vejlgaard teaches that any suitable power supply is appropriate for use in their invention and McCoy teaches that a DC electricity source is suitable for recharging electrolyte fluids, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a source of DC electricity in the system of Vejlgaard in order to achieve the predictable result of recharged electrolytes.
Regarding claim 2, Vejlgaard in view of McCoy teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Vejlgaard further teaches the system comprising at least two shoreside interconnected stacks (Vejlgaard [89]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vejlgaard in view of McCoy, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Allison (US 2019/0322189 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Vejlgaard in view of McCoy teaches all features of claims 1 and 2, as described above. Vejlgaard does not explicitly state that the interconnected shoreside stacks are hydraulically and electrically connected.
However, Allison teaches that it is known for flow batteries, as used in Vejlgaard, to comprise a plurality of battery stacks that are hydraulically and electrically connected to each other (Allison [127], Fig. 11). Allison teaches that it is known and suitable to connect flow battery stacks in parallel in order to reduce shunt currents (Allison [128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically connect the at least two shoreside interconnected stacks in parallel in order to reduce shunt currents.
Additionally, Allison teaches the stacks being hydraulically connected in series (Allison Fig. 11, battery stacks 602a, 602b, and 602c). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to hydraulically connect the stacks of Vejlgaard in series since it is taught to be known and suitable by Allison.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vejlgaard in view of McCoy, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Allison and Skyllas (Skyllas, M. et al. The Mechanism and Modelling of Shunt Current in the Vanadium Redox Flow Battery. Chemistry Select. 1, 2249-2256 (2016)).
Regarding claim 4, Vejlgaard in view of McCoy teaches all features of claims 1 and 2, as described above. Vejlgaard does not explicitly state that the interconnected shoreside stacks are hydraulically and electrically connected.
However, Allison teaches that it is known for flow batteries, as used in Vejlgaard, to comprise a plurality of battery stacks that are hydraulically and electrically connected to each other (Allison [127], Fig. 11). Allison teaches that it is known and suitable to connect flow battery stacks in parallel in order to reduce shunt currents (Allison [128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically connect the at least two shoreside interconnected stacks in parallel in order to reduce shunt currents.
Skyllas teaches that, when the number of connected redox flow batteries is high, hydraulic connections in series result in increased pumping energy losses and severe restriction of the overall energy efficiency of the battery system (Skyllas pg. 2256 left column last paragraph). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the number of stacks used in order to achieve desired performance and to use a parallel hydraulic connection arrangement when the number of stacks is high in order to prevent increased pumping energy losses and restriction of the energy efficiency of the system of battery stacks.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vejlgaard, as applied to claims 5 and 6 above, and in further view of Allison.
Regarding claim 7, Vejlgaard teaches all features of claims 5 and 6, as described above. Vejlgaard does not explicitly state that the interconnected shoreside stacks are hydraulically and electrically connected.
However, Allison teaches that it is known for flow batteries, as used in Vejlgaard, to comprise a plurality of battery stacks that are hydraulically and electrically connected to each other (Allison [127], Fig. 11). Allison teaches that it is known and suitable to connect flow battery stacks in parallel in order to reduce shunt currents (Allison [128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically connect the at least two shoreside interconnected stacks in parallel in order to reduce shunt currents.
Additionally, Allison teaches the stacks being hydraulically connected in series (Allison Fig. 11, battery stacks 602a, 602b, and 602c). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to hydraulically connect the stacks of Vejlgaard in series since it is taught to be known and suitable by Allison.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vejlgaard, as applied to claims 5 and 6 above, and in further view of Allison and Skyllas.
Regarding claim 8, Vejlgaard teaches all features of claims 5 and 6, as described above. Vejlgaard does not explicitly state that the interconnected shoreside stacks are hydraulically and electrically connected.
However, Allison teaches that it is known for flow batteries, as used in Vejlgaard, to comprise a plurality of battery stacks that are hydraulically and electrically connected to each other (Allison [127], Fig. 11). Allison teaches that it is known and suitable to connect flow battery stacks in parallel in order to reduce shunt currents (Allison [128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically connect the at least two shoreside interconnected stacks in parallel in order to reduce shunt currents.
Skyllas teaches that, when the number of connected redox flow batteries is high, hydraulic connections in series result in increased pumping energy losses and severe restriction of the overall energy efficiency of the battery system (Skyllas pg. 2256 left column last paragraph). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the number of stacks used in order to achieve desired performance and to use a parallel hydraulic connection arrangement when the number of stacks is high in order to prevent increased pumping energy losses and restriction of the energy efficiency of the system of battery stacks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Funakoshi (US 2020/0189401 A1): appears to disclose an electrolyte station for replacing electrolyte used in a vehicle (abstract, Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights