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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS/IDSs) submitted on 10/30/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS/IDSs is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “flow channel frame assembly” of claims 2 & 3, “proton exchange membrane” of claims 2 & 3, “carbon felt” of claim 3, and “switching valves” of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 4, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Document No. CN110828853A to Wang et al.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a flow battery testing device, characterized by: comprising a housing (15) and a testing body (in figure 2, the frame containing the testing stack 4), the testing body comprising a testing stack (4) and a plurality of liquid path assemblies (the connectors, pipes, and pumps, collectively), the testing stack being provided with a plurality of liquid flow paths (3, 5, 10, 11), an outer surface of the housing being provided with a bearing surface (the bearing surface is the surface upon which testing stack 4 is held in figure 2), the testing stack being provided on the bearing surface (figure 2), and the plurality of liquid path assemblies being provided in the housing and correspondingly cyclically communicating with the plurality of liquid flow paths one to one (figure 2; claim 1; “A redox flow battery system is suitable for modular, comprising positive electrode storage tank, storage tank liquid outlet is connected with the positive electrode of the anode circulating pump, and the positive cycles of the first positive electrode supplying pipeline pump liquid outlet are connected).
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches the flow battery testing device according to claim 1, and Yang further teaches wherein each liquid path assembly comprises a liquid tank (“storage tank”), a liquid pump (“circulation pump”), a liquid supply pipeline and a liquid return pipeline (3, 5, 10, 11), an inlet of the liquid supply pipeline is connected with an outlet of the liquid tank (“liquid inlet,” “liquid outlet,” figure 2), an outlet of the liquid return pipeline is connected with an inlet of the liquid tank (“liquid inlet,” “liquid outlet,” figure 2), and the liquid pump is provided at the liquid supply pipeline or the liquid return pipeline (“the first positive electrode return pipeline between the first positive electrode supplying pipeline anode circulation pump comprises a positive electrode storage tank 1”).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the flow battery testing device according to claim 1, wherein the bearing surface is located on a top surface of the housing (figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the flow battery testing device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of liquid path assemblies are two liquid path assemblies, and the plurality of liquid flow paths are two liquid flow paths (figure 2: there are liquid path assemblies for both of the two tanks in the system).
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.
Claim(s) 2 & 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Chinese Patent No. CN104716375A to Ma.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the flow battery testing device according to claim 1, but does not teach explicitly wherein the testing stack comprises two end plates, a plurality of flow channel frame assemblies provided between the two end plates, and a proton exchange membrane provided between adjacent flow channel frame assemblies, the two end plates are provided with a plurality of liquid inlet pipes correspondingly communicating with the plurality of flow channel frame assemblies one to one and a plurality of liquid outlet pipes correspondingly communicating with the plurality of flow channel frame assemblies one to one, and each flow channel frame assembly, together with the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe communicating therewith, forms one of the liquid flow paths.
However, Ma teaches wherein the testing stack comprises two end plates (“anode end plate, cathode end plate”), a plurality of flow channel frame assemblies provided between the two end plates (“frame plate assembly”), and a proton exchange membrane provided between adjacent flow channel frame assemblies (“ion exchange membrane”), the two end plates are provided with a plurality of liquid inlet pipes correspondingly communicating with the plurality of flow channel frame assemblies one to one and a plurality of liquid outlet pipes correspondingly communicating with the plurality of flow channel frame assemblies one to one (“a plurality of liquid flow battery to be tested share the same anode end plate and the cathode end plate”), and each flow channel frame assembly, together with the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe communicating therewith, forms one of the liquid flow paths (“a plurality of liquid flow battery to be tested share the same anode end plate and the cathode end plate”).
It 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 to use the plates, exchange membrane, and flow channels of Ma with the test setup of Wang because those features are part and parcel to testing flow batteries. While Wang does not explicitly teach those pieces explicitly taught by Ma, Wang necessarily must have a similar setup of plates and an exchange membrane, as well as flow channels.
Regarding claim 3, Yang in view of Ma teaches the flow battery testing device according to claim 2, and Ma further teaches wherein each flow channel frame assembly comprises a flow channel frame and a carbon felt provided inside the flow channel frame (“graphite felt”), and the proton exchange membrane is replaceably provided between adjacent flow channel frames (¶¶ [0007] & [0036]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20230088777 to Sample et al.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the flow battery testing device according to claim 4, but does not teach explicitly wherein the liquid pump is a centrifugal pump, and the centrifugal pump is provided at the liquid supply pipeline.
However, Sample teaches wherein the liquid pump is a centrifugal pump, and the centrifugal pump is provided at the liquid supply pipeline (¶ [0023]).
It 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 to use centrifugal pumps in a flow battery system for known advantages including high corrosion resistance to harsh electrolytes, smooth, pulsation-free flow, and high reliability with minimal maintenance.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20210359315 to Song et al.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the flow battery testing device according to claim 4, but does not teach explicitly wherein the housing is provided with a plurality of liquid drain pipes, and the plurality of liquid drain pipes correspondingly communicate with the plurality of liquid tanks one to one through a plurality of switching valves.
However, Song teaches wherein the housing is provided with a plurality of liquid drain pipes (¶ [0037]), and the plurality of liquid drain pipes correspondingly communicate with the plurality of liquid tanks one to one through a plurality of switching valves (¶ [0037]).
It 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 to combine the drain pipes and valves of Song with the device of Wang in order to allow for draining and replenishing of electrolytes to maintain battery performance.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20220131171 to Han et al.
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the flow battery testing device according to claim 1, but does not teach explicitly wherein the flow battery testing device further comprises: a tray provided on the bearing surface, the testing stack being provided on the tray.
However, Han teaches wherein the flow battery testing device further comprises: a tray provided on the bearing surface, the testing stack being provided on the tray (¶ [0017]).
It 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 to combine the tray of Han with the device of Wang to prevent any electrolyte leakage from escaping to the floor or other areas where it could cause problems.
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Han teaches the flow battery testing device according to claim 8, and Han further teaches wherein the tray is bonded to the bearing surface (figure 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chinese Patent Document No. CN208923285U to Wang et al. discloses a modularized flow battery system.
Chinese Patent Document No. CN207426026U to Liu et al. discloses a four-tank flow battery structure improving utilization rate of electrolyte.
Chinese Patent Document No. CN207320253U to Zhang et al. discloses a lithium battery production system and an electrolyte supply system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert P Alejnikov whose telephone number is (571)270-5164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00a-6:00p M-F.
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, Arleen Vazquez, can be reached at 571.272.2619. 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.
/ROBERT P ALEJNIKOV JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857