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 Interpretation
It is initially noted that although the claims are drawn to a vanadium ion battery, the claims as constructed appear to be drawn to the battery only at an initial/intermediate state of construction. In particular, the limitation that each of the positive and negative electrode electrolytes have vanadium ion oxidation numbers greater than 3.5 and lower than 4.0 would appear to only be true when the battery is initially filled with electrolyte and not when the battery is being operated (i.e. after the battery has been charged). In an operational state of the battery, the positive electrode electrolyte would presumably have a vanadium oxidation ion number of greater than 4 while the negative electrode electrolyte would presumably have a vanadium oxidation ion number of lower than 3.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2021/0175532) in view of any one of Benicewicz et al (US 2020/0091536), Kell et al (US 2016/0006058), or Ha (KR 10-2022-0139206). For the rejection of Ha, the examiner is relying on the translation attached to this office action.
With respect to claims 1 and 18, Lee discloses a vanadium ion battery including a positive electrode current collector (108A) and a negative electrode current collector (108B) where the collectors are spaced out apart from each other with a separating membrane (112) disposed between them (fig. 2A). Lee further discloses both positive and negative-electrode electrolyte reservoirs (106A, 106B respectively) that are defined between the separating member (112) and the respective current collectors (108A, 108B). See fig. 2A and par. 0028. Lee further discloses that both the positive and negative electrode electrolytes need to contain vanadium ions to support the V4+/V5+ and V2+/V3+ half reactions at the positive and negative electrodes respectively (par. 0043-0050). Lee further discloses that both the positive and negative electrode electrolyte reservoirs can be filled with the same starting electrolyte containing V4+ and V3+ ions (which implies the initial oxidation number would be between 3 and 4) which is then oxidized at the positive electrode and reduced at the negative electrode (par. 0052).
Lee does not explicitly disclose the use of oxidation number greater than +3.5. However, both Benicewicz and Kell discloses a similar vanadium ion battery and discloses that average vanadium ion oxidation number can be in excess of 3.5. See Benicewicz par. 0097 and Kell fig. 31 and par. 0167-0168. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teachings of Benicewicz or Kell for the battery of Lee because the utility of known oxidation numbers in the art for unspecified oxidation numbers requires only routine skill in the art. Although it is noted that although average oxidation number is technically different from the initial oxidation number of Lee, it is the choice of initial oxidation number of Lee that will govern what the eventual average oxidation number will be when the reservoirs are fully oxidized or reduced (i.e. to get an average oxidation of 3.55 will require starting with a oxidation of 3.55).
Alternatively, Ha discloses the conventional oxidation state for a vanadium battery is +3.5, but evidences that the actual oxidation number one gets is highly dependent on the initial starting materials. See tables 1 and 2 showing that the oxidation number can be ± 0.002 of the desired oxidation number depending on the additives used and the purity of the raw materials (tables 1 and 2). Hence even if exactly +3.5 is the desired starting oxidation number, one might get slight variations around that even when those variations are not desired. It is noted that that applicant is currently claiming any oxidation numbers greater than +3.5 (e.g. 3.50001 would read on the claim). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing that an electrolyte with a desired +3.5 oxidation number might have slight variations on that, as suggested/evidenced by Ha, because one can only control the desired oxidation number with a finite degree of precision.
With respect to claims 2 and 19, any of Benicewicz, Kell, and Ha render obvious greater than +3.5 and lower than +3.8 (see discussion above).
With respect to claims 3-5, Lee discloses using VOSO4 and sulfuric acid (par. 0051).
With respect to claims 6 and 20, Lee further discloses a communication channel (304, 308) to allow the two reservoirs to be in fluidic communication with each other (par. 0070-0071 and fig. 3A and 3B).
With respect to claim 7, Lee discloses both current collectors can comprise both a metal current collector (108A, 108B) as well as a carbon current collector (208A, 208B). See fig. 2A and par. 0055-0056).
With respect to claim 8, Lee discloses adding materials such as carbon felt into the reservoirs (par. 0052). Materials such as carbon felt would read on positive and negative electrodes impregnated in the positive and negative electrolyte respectively.
With respect to claims 9-11, Lee teaches the separating membrane (112) is a cationic (H+) conductive hydrocarbon-based polymer (par. 0053).
With respect to claim 12, Benicewicz discloses that in addition to materials like Nafion, polymers such as benzimidazole based polymers also find utility in the redox flow battery art (par. 0004-0006).
With respect to claim 13 (those limitations not previously discussed), regardless of how Lee adds the electrolyte to the reservoirs as discussed in par. 0051 would constitute an injection into the reservoir giving the claim languages its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to claims 14-17, see the rejection of claims 2-6 above.
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, these claims are substantially identical to claims 1 and 2 respectively except instead of stating that each of the positive and negative electrode electrolyte contain vanadium ions having the claimed oxidation number, claim 18 states the electrolyte is prepared with this same oxidation number (emphasis added). It appears this “is prepared” limitation could be interpreted as specifying a process of making the electrolyte, which would make claim 18 a product-by-process claim and product-by-process claims are not limited to the recited steps, but only the structure implied by the recited steps (MPEP 2113). Lee set forth every limitation of claim 1 except for the oxidation number utilized to initiate the battery constructure so Lee is the same or obvious as that of the product of claims 18 and 19.
With respect to claim 20, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 2017-007992A discloses an alternate vanadium ion battery where the average oxidation number can exceed +3.5 V.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights