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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. TW 113115502, filed on April 25, 2024.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 113036198 with reference made to attached translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a method for manufacturing a vanadium electrolyte, comprising: carrying out a reduction roasting reaction of ammonium trioxovanadate (V) (NH4VO3) ([0076] teaches a thermal decomposition of ammonium metavanadate (NH4VO3) at a temperature of 700-1100 °C) obtaining a vanadium-containing mixture ([0103] describes a mixture of V2O3 and V2O5 resulting from the thermal decomposition of ammonium metavanadate); and dissolving the vanadium-containing mixture in an aqueous sulfuric acid solution to obtain the vanadium electrolyte ([0103] teaches mixing the vanadium containing mixture into sulfuric acid to obtain a vanadium redox flow battery electrolyte).
Wang does not explicitly teach the reduction roasting reaction occurs at a temperature of from 700 °C to 900 °C for a time period of 1 hour to 4 hours.
Wang does teach the reduction reaction may occur at a temperature of 700-1100 °C ([0076]). Wang also teaches the reduction reaction may be 1-5 hours in duration ([n0061]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). in the instant case, the claimed ranges of reduction reaction temperature of 700-900 °C lies within the taught range of 700-1100 °C. Similarly, the claimed range of reduction reaction duration of 1-4 hours lies within the taught range of 1-5 hours.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Wang as applied to Claim 1 teaches the reduction roasting temperature may be 700-1100 °C. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the reduction roasting is carried out at a temperature equal to or greater than 800 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of reduction reaction temperature of greater than or equal to 800 °C lies within the taught range of 700-1100 °C.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Wang as applied to Claim 1 teaches the reduction roasting reaction may take place for 1-5 hours. This further teaches all the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the reduction roasting is carried out for a time period of equal to or greater than 3 hours. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed range of reduction reaction duration of greater than or equal to 3 hours lies within the taught range of 1-5 hours.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Wang as applied to Claim 1 teaches the reduction roasting reaction may occur at 700-1100 °C for 1-5 hours. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the reduction roasting is carried out at a temperature of 850 °C for a time period of 3 hours. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed value of reduction reaction temperature of 850 °C lies within the taught range of 700-1100 °C. Similarly, the claimed value of reduction reaction duration of 3 hours lies within the taught range of 1-5 hours.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above.
Modified wang does not explicitly teach the aqueous sulfuric acid solution has a sulfuric acid concentration of from 3 M to 6 M.
Wang does teach a sulfuric acid solution concentration of 1.0-8.0 mol/L ([n0041]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed range of sulfuric acid concentration of 3-6 M lies within the taught range of 1.0-8.0 mol/L.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Wang as applied to Claim 5 teaches the concentration of sulfuric acid may be 1.0-8.0 mol/L. It further teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the aqueous sulfuric acid solution has a sulfuric acid concentration of equal to or greater than 4 M. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed range of sulfuric acid concentration of equal to or greater than 4 M lies within the taught range of 1.0-8.0 mol/L.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Huang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0231170).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above.
Modified wang does not explicitly teach the vanadium-containing mixture is dissolved in the aqueous sulfuric acid solution at a temperature of from 60 °C to 90 °C.
Wang does teach the vanadium-containing mixture is heated in sulfuric acid to obtain an all-vanadium redox flow battery electrolyte but remains silent on the specific temperature used ([0103]). Huang teaches dissolving a vanadium-containing mixture in sulfuric acid at a temperature of 20-90 °C ([0028]).
To solve the same problem of effectively dissolving a vanadium-containing solid in sulfuric acid to provide an electrolyte for a redox flow battery, Huang teaches a suitable temperature for dissolving would be 20-90 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of dissolving temperature of 60 to 90 °C lies within the taught range of 20-90 °C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have performed the heated dissolving step of Wang at 20-90 °C, based on Huang’s teaching that this is a suitable and successful temperature to dissolve a vanadium-containing mixture into sulfuric acid.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Wang as applied to Claim 7 teaches that the dissolving step is performed at 20-90 °C. This further teaches the limitation of Claim 8, wherein the vanadium-containing mixture is dissolved in the aqueous sulfuric acid solution at a temperature of equal to or greater than 80 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of dissolving temperature of equal to or greater than 80 °C lies within the taught range of 20-90 °C.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above.
Modified wang does not explicitly teach the vanadium-containing mixture is dissolved in the aqueous sulfuric acid solution for a time period of from 1 hour to 5 hours.
Huang teaches a suitable time period for dissolving a vanadium-containing mixture into sulfuric acid is 1-3 hours ([0028]).
To solve the same problem of effectively dissolving a vanadium-containing solid in sulfuric acid to provide an electrolyte for a redox flow battery, Huang teaches a suitable dissolving time is 1-3 hours. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have performed the heated dissolving step of Wang for 1-3 hours, based on Huang’s teaching that this is a suitable and successful time to dissolve a vanadium-containing mixture into sulfuric acid.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Wang as applied to Claim 9 teaches the dissolving step occurs for 1-3 hours. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the vanadium-containing mixture is dissolved in the aqueous sulfuric acid solution for a time period of equal to or greater than 3 hours. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of dissolving time of equal to or greater than 3 hours overlaps with the taught range of 1-3 hours.
Claim(s) 11-17 and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kawashige (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0287436).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang teaches a method for manufacturing a vanadium electrolyte, comprising: carrying out a first reduction roasting reaction of ammonium trioxovanadate (V) (NH4VO3) ([0076] teaches a thermal decomposition of ammonium metavanadate (NH4VO3) at a temperature of 700-1100 °C), obtaining a first vanadium-containing mixture ([0103] describes a mixture of V2O3 and V2O5 resulting from the thermal decomposition of ammonium metavanadate); dissolving the first vanadium-containing mixture in a first aqueous sulfuric acid solution, obtaining a first vanadium-containing solution ([0103] teaches mixing the vanadium containing mixture into sulfuric acid to obtain a vanadium redox flow battery electrolyte).
Wang does not explicitly teach the first reduction roasting reaction occurs at a temperature of from 700 °C to 900 °C for a time period of from 1 hour to 4 hours; carrying out a second reduction roasting reaction of ammonium trioxovanadate (V) (NH4VO3) at a temperature of from 500 °C to 700 °C for a time period of from 1 hour to 4 hours, obtaining a second vanadium-containing mixture; dissolving the second vanadium-containing mixture in a second aqueous sulfuric acid solution, obtaining a second vanadium-containing solution; and mixing the first vanadium-containing solution and the second vanadium-containing solution to obtain the vanadium electrolyte.
Wang goes on to teach the reduction reaction may take place anywhere from 500-1300 °C ([n0061]). Wang also teaches the roasting time may be 0.5-5 hours ([n0061]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed range of the first reduction roasting temperature of 700-900 °C as well as the claimed range of the second reduction roasting temperature of 500-700 °C lie within the taught range of 500-1300 °C. Similarly, the claimed range of the time period of reduction roasting reaction for the first and second reduction roasting reaction of 1-4 hours lies within the taught range of 0.5-5 hours. Wang also identifies that the reduction reaction temperature influences the degree of reduction carried out and thus the vanadium valency of the final product ([0095] and [n0061]). Wang also identifies that two vanadium products of differing vanadium valencies may be mixed in any proportion as needed to achieve a particular average valency ([n0061]). Therefore, Wang teaches the control of time, temperature, and mixing ratios of final products to influence vanadium valency of the final electrolyte.
To solve the same problem of controlling the average vanadium valency of a final electrolyte, Kawashige teaches the mixing of two vanadium solutions in sulfuric acid with differing vanadium oxidation states. Specifically, Kawashige teaches the mixing of two vanadium solutions in sulfuric acid in controlled ratios in order to dictate average valency of the final electrolyte solution ([0074]-[0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Wang and Kawashige to arrive at the claimed invention to achieve the predictable result of a high purity vanadium electrolyte with a controlled average valency.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above.
Modified wang does not explicitly teach measuring average valence of the vanadium ion of the first vanadium-containing solution and average valence of the vanadium ion of the second vanadium-containing solution to calculate a predetermined mixing ratio between the first vanadium-containing solution and the second vanadium-containing solution; and mixing the first vanadium-containing solution and the second vanadium-containing solution according to the predetermined mixing ratio to obtain the vanadium electrolyte.
Wang does teach mixing two vanadium-containing products to arrive at a specific average valence state of vanadium of 3.5 ([n0061] and [n0068]).
Similarly, Kawashige teaches mixing two solutions containing vanadium of known valence state in sulfuric acid at a predetermined ratio in order to control the final average valence state of the vanadium containing electrolyte ([0074]-[0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take the method of modified Wang and mix the two vanadium containing solutions at predetermined ratios based on their valence states in order to control the average valence state of the final electrolyte, as taught by Kawashige and Wang.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Wang as applied to Claim 11 teaches the first reduction reaction may occur at 500-1300 °C. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 13, wherein the first reduction roasting reaction is carried out at a temperature of equal to or greater than 800 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of first reduction reaction temperature of greater than or equal to 800 °C lies within the taught range of 500-1300 °C.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Wang as applied to Claim 11 teaches the first reduction roasting reaction may occur for 0.5-5 hours. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the first reduction roasting reaction is carried out for a time period of equal to or greater than 3 hours. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed range of first reduction reaction duration of greater than or equal to 3 hours lies within the taught range of 0.5-5 hours.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Wang as applied to Claim 11 teaches the first reduction roasting reaction may occur at 500-1300 °C and 0.5-5 hours. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the first reduction roasting reaction is carried out at a temperature of 850 °C for a time period of 3 hours. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed value of first reduction reaction temperature of 850 °C lies within the taught range of 500-1300 °C. Similarly, the claimed value of first reduction reaction duration of 3 hours lies within the taught range of 0.5-5 hours.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above.
Modified wang does not explicitly teach the first aqueous sulfuric acid solution has a sulfuric acid concentration of from 3 M to 6 M.
Wang does teach a sulfuric acid solution concentration of 1.0-8.0 mol/L ([n0041]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed range of first sulfuric acid concentration of 3-6 M lies within the taught range of 1.0-8.0 mol/L.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Wang as applied to Claim 16 teaches the first sulfuric acid concentration is 1.0-8.0 mol/L. This further teaches the limitation of Claim 17, wherein the first aqueous sulfuric acid solution has a sulfuric acid concentration of equal to or greater than 4 M. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed range of first sulfuric acid concentration of equal to or greater than 4 M lies within the taught range of 1.0-8.0 mol/L.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Wang as applied to Claim 11 teaches the second reduction roasting reaction may occur at 500-1300 °C. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 22, wherein the second reduction roasting reaction is carried out at a temperature of equal to or greater than 600 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of second reduction reaction temperature of greater than or equal to 600 °C lies within the taught range of 500-1300 °C.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Wang as applied to Claim 11 teaches the second reduction roasting reaction may occur for 0.5-5 hours. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 23, wherein the second reduction roasting reaction is carried out for a time period of equal to or greater than 2 hours. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed range of second reduction reaction duration of greater than or equal to 2 hours lies within the taught range of 0.5-5 hours.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Wang as applied to Claim 11 teaches the second reduction roasting reaction may occur at 500-1300 °C for 0.5-5 hours. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 24, wherein the second reduction roasting reaction is carried out at a temperature of 650 °C for a time period of 2 hours. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed value of second reduction reaction temperature of 650 °C lies within the taught range of 500-1300 °C. Similarly, the claimed value of second reduction reaction duration of 2 hours lies within the taught range of 0.5-5 hours.
Regarding Claim 25, modified Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above.
Modified wang does not explicitly teach the second aqueous sulfuric acid solution has a sulfuric acid concentration of from 3 M to 6 M.
Wang does teach a sulfuric acid solution concentration of 1.0-8.0 mol/L ([n0041]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed range of second sulfuric acid concentration of 3-6 M lies within the taught range of 1.0-8.0 mol/L.
Regarding Claim 26, modified Wang as applied to Claim 25 teaches the second sulfuric acid concentration may be 1.0-8.0 mol/L. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 26, wherein the second aqueous sulfuric acid solution has a sulfuric acid concentration of equal to or greater than 4 M. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed range of second sulfuric acid concentration of equal to or greater than 4 M lies within the taught range of 1.0-8.0 mol/L.
Claim(s) 18-21 and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kawashige, further in view of Huang.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above.
Modified wang does not explicitly teach the first vanadium-containing mixture is dissolved in the first aqueous sulfuric acid solution at a temperature of from 60 °C to 90 °C.
Wang does teach the vanadium-containing mixture is heated in sulfuric acid to obtain an all-vanadium redox flow battery electrolyte but remains silent on the specific temperature used ([0103]). Huang teaches dissolving a first vanadium-containing mixture in sulfuric acid at a temperature of 20-90 °C ([0028]).
To solve the same problem of effectively dissolving a vanadium-containing solid in sulfuric acid to provide an electrolyte for a redox flow battery, Huang teaches a suitable temperature for dissolving would be 20-90 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of first dissolving temperature of 60 to 90 °C lies within the taught range of 20-90 °C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have performed the heated dissolving step of Wang at 20-90 °C, based on Huang’s teaching that this is a suitable and successful temperature to dissolve a vanadium-containing mixture into sulfuric acid.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Wang as applied to Claim 18 teaches the first vanadium-containing mixture may be dissolved in sulfuric acid at 20-90 °C. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 19, wherein, the first vanadium-containing mixture is dissolved in the first aqueous sulfuric acid solution at a temperature of equal to or greater than 80 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of dissolving temperature of equal to or greater than 80 °C lies within the taught range of 20-90 °C.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above.
Modified wang does not explicitly teach the first vanadium-containing mixture is dissolved in the first aqueous sulfuric acid solution for a time period of from 1 hour to 5 hours.
Huang teaches a suitable time period for dissolving a vanadium-containing mixture into sulfuric acid is 1-3 hours ([0028]).
To solve the same problem of effectively dissolving a vanadium-containing solid in sulfuric acid to provide an electrolyte for a redox flow battery, Huang teaches a suitable dissolving time is 1-3 hours. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have performed the first heated dissolving step of modified Wang for 1-3 hours, based on Huang’s teaching that this is a suitable and successful time to dissolve a vanadium-containing mixture into sulfuric acid.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Wang as applied to Claim 20 teaches a first vanadium-containing mixture dissolving time of 1-3 hours. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 21 wherein the first vanadium-containing mixture is dissolved in the first aqueous sulfuric acid solution for a time period of equal to or greater than 3 hours. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of first dissolving time of equal to or greater than 3 hours overlaps with the taught range of 1-3 hours.
Regarding Claim 27, modified Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above.
Modified wang does not explicitly teach the second vanadium-containing mixture is dissolved in the second aqueous sulfuric acid solution at a temperature of from 60 °C to 90 °C.
Wang does teach the vanadium-containing mixture is heated in sulfuric acid to obtain an all-vanadium redox flow battery electrolyte but remains silent on the specific temperature used ([0103]). Huang teaches dissolving a vanadium-containing mixture in sulfuric acid at a temperature of 20-90 °C ([0028]).
To solve the same problem of effectively dissolving a vanadium-containing solid in sulfuric acid to provide an electrolyte for a redox flow battery, Huang teaches a suitable temperature for dissolving would be 20-90 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of second dissolving temperature of 60 to 90 °C lies within the taught range of 20-90 °C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have performed the heated dissolving step of Wang at 20-90 °C, based on Huang’s teaching that this is a suitable and successful temperature to dissolve a vanadium-containing mixture into sulfuric acid.
Regarding Claim 28, modified Wang as applied to Claim 27 teaches a second vanadium dissolving temperature of 20-90 °C. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 28, wherein the second vanadium-containing mixture is dissolved in the second aqueous sulfuric acid solution at a temperature of equal to or greater than 80 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of second dissolving temperature of equal to or greater than 80 °C lies within the taught range of 20-90 °C.
Regarding Claim 29, modified Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above.
Modified wang does not explicitly teach the second vanadium-containing mixture is dissolved in the second aqueous sulfuric acid solution for a time period of from 1 hour to 4 hours.
Huang teaches a suitable time period for dissolving a vanadium-containing mixture into sulfuric acid is 1-3 hours ([0028]).
To solve the same problem of effectively dissolving a vanadium-containing solid in sulfuric acid to provide an electrolyte for a redox flow battery, Huang teaches a suitable dissolving time is 1-3 hours. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have performed the second heated dissolving step of Wang for 1-3 hours, based on Huang’s teaching that this is a suitable and successful time to dissolve a vanadium-containing mixture into sulfuric acid.
Regarding Claim 30, modified Wang as applied to Claim 29 teaches a second dissolving time of 1-3 hours. This further teaches the limitations of Claim 30, wherein the second vanadium-containing mixture is dissolved in the second aqueous sulfuric acid solution for a time period of equal to or greater than 2 hours. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of dissolving time of equal to or greater than 2 hours overlaps with the taught range of 1-3 hours.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang (CN 116154244) teaches the preparation of a vanadium electrolyte by heating NH4VO3 and dissolving the product in sulfuric acid where the average vanadium valency of the final electrolyte is controlled.
Liu (US 2019/0379079) teaches dissolving vanadium compounds of varying oxidation states in sulfuric acid at high temperatures for extended periods of time.
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
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights