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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1—5, 7, 9—10, 15, and 17—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seiji, et al. (WO 2020/157837 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Seiji, et al. teach an electrode for use in a redox-flow battery system (paragraph 0004), the electrode comprising: carbon fibers (paragraph 0019), wherein a compressive strain factor determined by dividing a difference between a first (initial) thickness of the electrode and a second (electrode) thickness of the electrode by the first (initial) thickness is more 0.6 (Table 1, paragraph 0067 and 0155; examiner notes Seiji, et al. teach the calculation of the compressive strain { (t0 – t0.8) / t0 } × Calculated with 100 [paragraph 0067] and an example wherein the compressive strain was 65% [Table 1 Number 200, paragraph 0155] ), the first (initial) thickness is a thickness of the electrode measured in a state where a surface pressure of 0.7 kPa is applied to the electrode, and the second (electrode) thickness is a thickness of the electrode measured in a state where a surface pressure of 0.8 MPa is applied to the electrode.
Prior art teaches a specific example within claimed range and thus the prior art anticipates the claim; See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 2, Seiji, et al. further teach the electrode comprising carbon particles (paragraph 0160).
Regarding claim 3, Seiji, et al. further teach the electrode wherein a content ratio of the carbon particles is not less than 1 mass % and less than 50 mass % relative to the electrode regarded as 100 mass % (paragraph 0160; examiner notes Seiji, et al. teach an example wherein the carbon particle content is 25 mass % and the carbon paper with 100 mass%).
Prior art teaches a specific example within claimed range and thus the prior art anticipates the claim; See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 4, Seiji, et al. further teach the electrode comprising a plurality of primary particles, wherein each of the plurality of primary particles is the carbon particle (paragraph 0084; examiner notes Seiji, et al. teach an electrode content of carbon particles to be 10 mass%—50 mass%), and the plurality of primary particles have an average diameter of 15 μm or less (paragraph 0081; examiner notes Seiji, et al. teach the average particle size of carbon black between 4 nm—500 nm as the carbon particle).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 5, Seiji, et al. further teach the electrode comprising first particles, wherein each of the first particles is the carbon particle having a plurality of pores on a surface of the first particle (paragraph 0004, 0053, and 0077), and a porosity attributed to the pores is 10% or more (paragraph 0093—0094 and 0160; examiner notes in paragraph 0093—0094 Seiji, et al. teach bulk density is calculated using the porosity (%) of the electrode wherein the formula for bulk density is B(g/cm3) = d × (1 – {P(%) / 100}) where B is the bulk density, d is the true density, and P(%) is the porosity and in paragraph 0160 Seiji, et al. further teach an example of an electrode with a bulk density 0.32g/cm3 which correlates to a porosity of P(%) = (1 – {0.32 / d}) x 100 where d is the true density of a carbon-based electrode. Examiner notes the density of water is 1g/cm3 therefore the true density of the carbon-based electrode would be greater than 1g/cm3 and thus the examiner contends the example porosity is more than 68%).
Prior art teaches a specific example within claimed range and thus the prior art anticipates the claim; See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 7, Seiji, et al. further teach the electrode comprising a binder (paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 9, Seiji, et al. further teach the electrode wherein the binder is made of a resin (paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 10, Seiji, et al. and Satoru, et al. teach the biner may be a resin. Examiner notes that claim 10 further specifies the amount of binder made of carbon materials only and not resins and as such, it remains rejected.
Regarding claim 15, Seiji, et al. further teach the electrode wherein the first (initial) thickness is from 0.10 mm to 3.0 mm (paragraph 0025; examiner notes Seiji, et al. teach the initial thickness of 0.3 mm—2.0 mm).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 17, Seiji, et al. further teach a battery cell for use in a redox-flow battery system, the battery cell comprising the electrode (claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Seiji, et al. further teach a cell stack for use in a redox-flow battery system, the cell stack comprising a plurality of the battery cells (claim 18; paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 19, Seiji, et al. further teach a redox-flow battery system comprising the battery cell (claim 19; paragraph 0006 and 0056).
Regarding claim 20, Seiji, et al. further teach the redox-flow battery system comprising: a positive electrolyte (item—13; paragraph 0052) and a negative electrolyte (item—14; paragraph 0052) that are supplied to the battery cell (item—1; paragraph 0052), wherein the positive electrolyte includes manganese ions (paragraph 0255), and the negative electrolyte includes titanium ions (paragraph 0255).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 from Seiji, et al.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 12—13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiji, et al. (WO 2020/157837 A1).
Regarding claim 6, examiner notes highest peak diameter of the pores is a property. Seiji, et al. teach the electrode with the same species as the applicant. Species in Seiji, et al. for the electrode comprises: carbon fibers (paragraph 0021), resin-based carbon binder including phenolic resin (paragraph 0021 and 0078), carbon particles (paragraph 0021 and 0080), and catalyst (paragraph 0085) wherein the first (initial) thickness may be from 0.3 mm—2 mm (paragraph 0080) and a porosity attributed to the pores is 38% or more (paragraph 0093—0094 and 0148; examiner notes in paragraph 0093—0094 Seiji, et al. teach bulk density is calculated using the porosity (%) of the electrode wherein the formula for bulk density is B(g/cm3) = d × (1 – {P(%) / 100}) where B is the bulk density, d is the true density, and P(%) is the porosity and in paragraph 0148 Seiji, et al. further teach an electrode with a bulk density range 0.11 g/cm3—0.7 g/cm3 which correlates to a porosity of P(%) = (1 – {0.7/ d}) x 100 where d is the true density of a carbon-based electrode wherein examiner notes the density of water is 1 g/cm3 therefore the true density of the carbon-based electrode would be greater than 1 g/cm3 and thus the examiner contends the porosity is more than 30%). Turning to applicant’s specification the electrode comprises: a carbon fiber (paragraph 0079), resin-based binder including phenolic resin (paragraph 0098), carbon particles (paragraph 0029), and catalyst (paragraph 0102) wherein the first thickness of the electrode may be from 0.10 mm to 3.0 mm (paragraph 0061) and a porosity attributed to the pores is 20% or more (paragraph 0088). Based on the same species with an overlapping thickness, Seiji, et al. renders obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed the highest peak diameter of the pores of the electrode as claimed.
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 12—13, examiner notes compression strain is a property of the negative electrode plate. Seiji, et al. teach the electrode with the same species as the applicant. Species in Seiji, et al. for the electrode comprises: carbon fibers (paragraph 0021), resin-based carbon binder including phenolic resin (paragraph 0021 and 0078), carbon particles (paragraph 0021 and 0080), and catalyst (paragraph 0085) wherein the first (initial) thickness may be from 0.3 mm—2 mm (paragraph 0088) and a porosity attributed to the pores is 38% or more (paragraph 0093—0094 and 0148; examiner notes in paragraph 0093—0094 Seiji, et al. teach bulk density is calculated using the porosity (%) of the electrode wherein the formula for bulk density is B(g/cm3) = d × (1 – {P(%) / 100}) where B is the bulk density, d is the true density, and P(%) is the porosity and in paragraph 0148 Seiji, et al. further teach an electrode with a bulk density range 0.11 g/cm3—0.7 g/cm3 which correlates to a porosity of P(%) = (1 – {0.7/ d}) x 100 to where d is the true density of a carbon-based electrode. Examiner notes the density of water is 1 g/cm3 therefore the true density of the carbon-based electrode would be greater than 1 g/cm3 and thus the examiner contends the example porosity is more than 30%). Turning to applicant’s specification, the electrode comprises: a carbon fiber (paragraph 0079), resin-based binder including phenolic resin (paragraph 0098), carbon particles (paragraph 0029), and catalyst (paragraph 0102) wherein the first thickness of the electrode may be from 0.10 mm to 3.0 mm (paragraph 0061) and a porosity attributed to the pores is 20% or more (paragraph 0088). Based on the same species with an overlapping thickness and porosity (%), Seiji, et al. renders obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed the compressive strain factors of the electrode as claimed.
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2131.03.
Claim(s) 8, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiji, et al. (WO 2020/157837 A1) in view of Satoru, et al. (JP 2021/125385 A).
With respect to claim 8, Seiji, et al. teach an electrode for use in a redox-flow battery system (paragraph 0004), the electrode comprising: carbon fibers (paragraph 0019), wherein a compressive strain factor determined by dividing a difference between a first (initial) thickness of the electrode and a second (electrode) thickness of the electrode by the first (initial) thickness is more 0.6 (Table 1, paragraph 0067 and 0155; examiner notes Seiji, et al. teach the calculation of the compressive strain { (t0 – t0.8) / t0 } × Calculated with 100 [paragraph 0067] and an example wherein the compressive strain was 65% [Table 1 Number 200, paragraph 0155] ), the first (initial) thickness is a thickness of the electrode measured in a state where a surface pressure of 0.7 kPa is applied to the electrode, and the second (electrode) thickness is a thickness of the electrode measured in a state where a surface pressure of 0.8 MPa is applied to the electrode; and a binder made of a resin (paragraph 0078; examiner notes Seiji, et al. teach a carbon biner made of phenolic resin).
Seiji et al. render obvious the features of claim 1 but do not teach a content ratio of the binder to the electrode.
Satoru, et al. teach a redox-flow battery wherein the electrode has a surface pressure applied wherein the electrode comprises carbon fibers (paragraph 0009) and binders made of phenolic resin (paragraph 0013). Satoru, et al. further teach a content ratio of the binder is not less than 0.1 mass % and less than 40 mass % relative to the electrode regarded as 100 mass % (paragraph 0023—0024; examiner note in paragraph 0023 Satoru, et al. teach 100 mass% of the electrode for redox flow batteries of the present invention is preferable a total of 25 to 35 mass% of carbon (B)/binder and graphite particles (C) and in paragraph 0024 Satoru, et al. further teach mass ratio of binder/graphite particles (C) is 0.40--0.75). Satoru, et al. motivation is to increase bending rigidity and suppress deflection of the bipolar plate into the flow path (paragraph 0024).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2131.03.
Seiji, et al. and Satoru, et al. teach redox-flow battery with an electrode comprising carbon fiber, carbon particles, and carbon binder (phenolic resin) to reduce the contact resistance between the electrode and the bipolar plate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure a redox-flow battery electrode taught by Seiji, et al. with mass % of the binder taught by Satoru, et al. to create a redox-flow battery with improved battery performance as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Satoru, et al. further teach the electrode comprising carbon particles and a binder, wherein the binder is made of a resin, and a mass ratio of the binder to the carbon particles is from 0.005 to 3 (paragraph 0024; examiner note Satoru, et al. teach mass ratio of binder/carbon particles is 0.40—0.75).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 14, Satoru, et al. further teach the electrode wherein a mass per unit area of the electrode is from 20 g/m2 to 600 g/m2 (paragraph 0049; examiner notes Satoru, et al. teach the mass per unit area of 240 g/m2 electrode material for the electrode). Satoru, et al. motivation is avoiding internal resistance to increase due to insufficient surface area (paragraph 0018)
Prior art teaches a specific example within claimed range and thus the prior art anticipates the claim; See MPEP 2131.03.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiji, et al. (WO 2020/157837 A1) in view of Darling, et al. (US 2014/0302423 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Seiji, et al. teach a measure state where no surface pressure is applied to electrode is referred to as the uncompressed state. Seiji, et al. render obvious the features of claim 1 but do not teach a percentage of the uncompress state that meets the claim dimensions.
Regarding claim 16, Darling, et al. teach a redox-flow battery wherein the electrode comprises carbon fibers (paragraph 0019) and carbon binder residue such as phenolic resin (paragraph 0019). Darling, et al. further teach the electrode wherein a void rate of the electrode measured in a state where no surface pressure is applied to the electrode is 50% or more (abstract; examiner notes Darling, et al. teach an uncompressed porosity in the range of 60-85%). Darling, et al. motivation is to enhance performance and durability of the flow battery for more uniform compression and flow distribution (paragraph 0022).
Seiji, et al. and Darling, et al. teach redox-flow battery with an electrode comprising carbon fiber, carbon particles, and carbon binder (phenolic resin) to reduce the contact resistance between the electrode and the bipolar plate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure a redox-flow battery electrode taught by Seiji, et al. with the measured state of no surface pressure taught by Darling, et al. to create a redox-flow battery with improved battery performance and flow as claimed.
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2131.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN MITCHELL FRAZIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5955. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00 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, Maria Veronica D Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights