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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reduction equation (4) in paragraph [0005] as well as reduction equation (36) in paragraph [0066] of the specification are not properly balanced.
Paragraph [0031] recites “fluoroalkylphosphate (LiFAP)” where it should recite “lithium fluoroalkylphosphate (LiFAP).”
Paragraph [0031] recites “sodium hexafluorophosphate (NaPF4)” where it should recite “sodium hexafluorophosphate (NaPF6).”
Paragraph [0031] recites “potassium perchlorate (NaClO4)” where it should recite “potassium perchlorate (KClO4).”
Paragraph [0031] recites “potassium hexafluorophosphate (KPF4)” where it should recite “potassium hexafluorophosphate (KPF6).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “fluoroalkylphosphate (LiFAP)” where it should recite “lithium fluoroalkylphosphate (LiFAP).”
Claim 16 recites “sodium hexafluorophosphate (NaPF4)” where it should recite “sodium hexafluorophosphate (NaPF6).”
Claim 16 recites “potassium perchlorate (NaClO4)” where it should recite “potassium perchlorate (KClO4).”
Claim 16 recites “potassium hexafluorophosphate (KPF4)” where it should recite “potassium hexafluorophosphate (KPF6).”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the elements following “e.g.” are treated as optional limitations
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 11-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0175470).
Regarding Claim 1, Bai teaches a metal-seawater flow battery, comprising: an anode disposed in a non-aqueous electrolyte, the anode comprising an active metal (Figure 23, [0096], and [0115] teach lithium disposed in a non-aqueous electrolyte); a cathode spaced apart from the anode; a metal-ion conductive membrane separating the anode from the cathode; and wherein the cathode is configured to receive a flow of seawater therethrough (Figure 23, [0096], and [0115] teach a lithium anode disposed in an organic electrolyte, a cathode receiving seawater separated from the anode, and a lithium ion conducting separator).
Regarding Claim 2, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above.
The limitation of a flow speed of seawater represents a manner of operating a device and does not serve to differentiate the device from the prior art (see MPEP 2114 II).
Regardless, Bai further teaches a pump configured to provide a flow of seawater through the cathode with a flow speed in the range of 0.01 to 10 cm/s, inclusive (Figure 15b, [0040], and [0086] teach a pump with a catholyte flow rates ranging from 1 mL/min•cm2 to 3 mL/min•cm2 corresponding to 0.0167 cm/s to 0.05 cm/s. Figure 15b illustrates the pump configured to drive flow).
Regarding Claim 3, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 as described above. Bai as described above also teaches the pump is in fluid communication with seawater (Figure 15b teaches the pump used to drive the flow of seawater to the cathode).
Bai does not explicitly teach seawater having a dissolved oxygen concentration in the range of 2 to 10 mg/L, inclusive, and sodium concentration of > 10 g/L. These limitations are directed to the material worked upon by the battery and thus do not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Regarding Claim 4, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above.
Bai further teaches the anode comprises lithium, sodium, zinc, aluminum, potassium, magnesium, or calcium ([0115] and Figure 23 teach the use of lithium as the anode); and wherein a composition of the metal-ion conductive membrane corresponds to the anode metal (e.g., lithium-ion, sodium-ion, zinc-ion, aluminum-ion, potassium-ion, magnesium-ion, or calcium-ion) (abstract and [0072] teach to use of a lithium superionic conductor (LISICON) as the metal-ion conductive membrane).
Regarding Claim 5, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above.
Bai further teaches the cathode is made from carbon, nickel, titanium, ruthenium, tantalum, tungsten, copper, stainless steel, or combinations thereof ([0114] teaches the cathode may be made of various forms of carbon).
Regarding Claim 6, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 5 as described above.
Bai further teaches the cathode is made from carbon ([0114] teaches the cathode may be made of various forms of carbon).
Regarding Claim 8, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above.
Bai further teaches the cathode is porous ([0114] teaches the cathode may be made of porous carbon).
Regarding Claim 11, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above.
Bai further teaches a flow plate configured to guide a flow of seawater ([0096] and Figure 15a teach a flow channel for the catholyte).
Regarding Claim 12, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above.
Bai further teaches a housing comprising: an anode side containing the anode; a cathode side containing the cathode, wherein the cathode side of the housing has an inlet configured to receive a flow of seawater and an outlet configured to discharge the flow of seawater; and wherein the metal-ion conductive membrane separates the anode side of the housing and the cathode side of the housing ([0096] and Figure 15a teach an anode side, a cathode side with an inlet and outlet, and a lithium-ion conducting membrane separating the anode side from the cathode side).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above.
Bai further teaches an electrocatalyst is distributed at a surface of the cathode ([0106] teaches the use of a cathode catalyst).
Regarding Claim 15, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above.
Bai further teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises a salt dissolved in a non-aqueous solvent ([0097] teaches the organic electrolyte of Figure 23 is 1 M LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate).
Regarding Claim 16, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 15 as described above.
Bai further teaches the salt comprises one or more of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium perchlorate (LiClO4), lithium nitrate (LiNO3), lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), lithium oxalyldifluoroborate (LiODFB), lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB), fluoroalkylphosphate (LiFAP), lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB), sodium hexafluorophosphate (NaPF4), sodium tetrafluoroborate (NaBF4), sodium perchlorate (NaClO4), sodium nitrate (NaNO3), potassium hexafluorophosphate (KPF4), potassium tetrafluoroborate (KBF4), potassium perchlorate (NaClO4), and potassium nitrate (KNO3) ([0097] teaches the organic electrolyte of Figure 23 is 1 M LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate).
Regarding Claim 17, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 15 as described above.
Bai further teaches the solvent comprises one or more of ethylene carbonate (EC) and propylene carbonate (PC), low viscosity carbonate solvents (e.g., ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC)), ether solvents (e.g., tetrahydrofuran (THF) dimethoxyethane (DME)) ([0097] teaches the organic electrolyte of Figure 23 is 1 M LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai, in view of Zhang (A novel rechargeable hybrid Na-seawater flow battery using bifunctional electrocatalytic carbon sponge as cathode current collector, Journal of Power Sources, 400, (2018) 478-484).
Regarding Claim 7, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 5 as described above.
Bai does not explicitly teach the carbon is in the form of carbon foam, carbon nanotubes, activated carbon, carbon black, or combinations thereof.
Zhang does teach the carbon is in the form of carbon foam, carbon nanotubes, activated carbon, carbon black, or combinations thereof (Figure 2 and corresponding discussion teach a carbon sponge cathode).
To solve the same problem of providing a metal-seawater battery with high power density, Zhang teaches the use of a porous carbon sponge as a cathode material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the carbon sponge cathode of Zhang into the metal-seawater battery taught by Bai in order to improve activity on the electrode.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai in view of Neumann (U.S. Patent No. 10,879, 537).
Regarding Claim 9, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 8 as described above.
Bai does not explicitly teach a porosity of the cathode is in a range of 50% to 95%, inclusive.
Neumann teaches a porous carbon used in an electrode material with a porosity between 50% and 95% (abstract and Col. 3 line 55-60).
Neumann is analogous to the instant application as it relates to the use of porous carbon as a battery electrode material. While Neumann teaches the use of carbon as a negative electrode material with a different battery chemistry, Neumann teaches that this porosity range of carbon offers a material where dissolved active material ions can penetrate the carbon material quickly and easily (Col. 4 lines 22-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the porosity taught by Neumann into the porous carbon cathode material taught by Bai in order to allow active ions and molecules to more efficiently move through the cathode material.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai in view of Visco (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0429404 with domestic benefit to provisional application No. 63/200,924).
Regarding Claim 10, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above.
Bai does not explicitly teach the cathode comprises one or more plates spaced apart from the metal-ion conductive membrane at a distance of 0.1 to 10 cm, inclusive.
Bai does teach a cathode plate being spaced apart from the metal-ion conductive membrane by way of a 300 µm gasket ([0096]). Bai teaches the spacing between the metal-ion conducting membrane and cathode plate serves as a flow channel through which the seawater catholyte is pumped ([0096]). To solve the same problem of creating a water activated battery, Visco teaches a seawater-lithium battery, similar to that of the instant application, where the gap between the membrane and cathode may be 2 mm ([0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the metal-seawater battery of Bai with the 2 mm spacing between the cathode and metal-ion conductive membrane taught by Visco to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so because this is incorporating a known spacing for cathode and metal-ion conductive membrane as the spacing between the metal-ion conducting membrane and cathode plate of Bai to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai in view of Peuckert (Oxygen Reduction on Small Supported Platinum Particles. 1986, J. Electrochem. Soc. 133 944-947).
Regarding Claim 14, Bai teaches all the limitations of Claim 13 as described above.
While Bai does teach the electrocatalyst may be platinum ([0106] teaches platinum may be used as the cathode catalyst), Bai does not explicitly teach the platinum is in the form of nanoparticles.
To solve the same problem of effectively reducing oxygen, Peuckert teaches that a platinum catalyst is most efficient at an average particle diameter of 3-5 nm (Figure 4 and corresponding discussion).
Peukert is analogous to the instant application as it relates to methods of effectively catalyzing an oxygen reduction reaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take the metal-seawater battery of Bai and introduce platinum nanoparticles to the cathode surface in order to maximize efficiency of the platinum electrocatalyst, as taught by Peukert.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Visco (US 2007/0037058) teaches a lithium-seawater battery structure where the lithium anode is protected by a membrane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN G. DIAMOND whose telephone number is (571)270-5888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/B.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
