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 .
This action is responsive to the initial filing of 7/18/2024.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length and contains legal phraseology (“means”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Several equations and their respective descriptions in the disclosure may contain errors:
In paragraphs 34 and 60, the equations for I(θ) have several issues. First, the units on the left- and right-hand sides of the equation do not match. The right-hand side of the equation has units of volume (R2 has units of area, dR has units of length, and the other parts (θ, n, and J) are likely unitless), which does not match the units for intensity on the left-hand side of the equation. Second, the bounds of the integral, which represent the range of radii over which to sum, have values of 0 and 1. While a radius of 0 makes sense as a lower bound in this mathematical context (0 meters = 0 inches = 0 nm = …), the unitless upper bound of one does not make sense as a radius of a bubble, which would likely have units appropriate to a length (such as meters or other units derived therefrom). Finally, the function JI is described as a Bayesian function of a first type. It is unclear what is meant by a Bayesian function of a first type, as that is not a commonly known function in the art and is not defined elsewhere in the disclosure. Also see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) below.
The equation in paragraphs 41 and 64 for the correlation function would appear to equal zero for finite values of S1, S2, and t, due to the integral maintaining a fixed, finite value and the 1/T factor going to zero as T goes to infinity. The upper bound of the integral may be intended to be T instead of t, so that the right-hand side of the equation approaches some “averaged” value as the range of the integral and the division factor both increase.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “determination unit” in claim 12, which is described in paragraph 59 of the specification as including “a receiving circuit, a filter circuit, an amplification circuit, and a demodulation circuit” and
the “processing unit” of claim 12, for which the specification does not give a distinct structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 4, 8 and 12 are 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.
Claim 4 includes an equation for an intensity of light which has several issues.
First, the units on the left- and right-hand sides of the equation do not match. The right-hand side of the equation has units of volume (R2 has units of area, dR has units of length, and the other parts (θ, n, and J) are likely unitless), which does not match the units for intensity on the left-hand side of the equation.
Second, the bounds of the integral, which represent the range of radii over which to sum, have values of 0 and 1. While a radius of 0 makes sense as a lower bound in this mathematical context (0 meters = 0 inches = 0 nm = …), the unitless upper bound of one does not make sense as a radius of a bubble, which would likely have units appropriate to a length (such as meters or other units derived therefrom).
Third, the function JI is described as a Bayesian function of a first type. It is unclear what is meant by a Bayesian function of a first type, as that is not a commonly known function in the art and is not defined elsewhere in the disclosure.
Finally, it is unclear from the way in which the equation is presented how the equation is intended to affect the scope of the claim as a whole. In other words, when one is performing the method, are any steps in the method added or performed differently as a result of the limitation reciting the equation or is the equation simply attempting to describe a result that is inherent to how bubbles of a particular size distribution will naturally interact with incoming light? The claim element is interpreted as describing results rather than actions taken as part of the claimed method, so is not considered limiting on the scope of the claim.
Claim 8 describes calculating a void fraction by taking a void volume (which would be measured in m3 or equivalent) divided by a flow rate (which would be measured in m3/s or equivalent). Such a division would have units of time, rather than being a unitless number that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from a void fraction. It is unclear what is meant by this calculation. The claim is interpreted as requiring that the void fraction is calculated in the flow.
Regarding claim 12, claim limitation “processing unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification only ever defines the processing unit in functional terms, without stating what structures are used to perform those functions.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As above, claim 12 is indefinite for failure to disclose adequate structure in the specification. Because there is inadequate disclosure of the claimed invention, the inventor has also not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Interpretation of the claim:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, with the exception of the imaging system, which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as described above. See MPEP 2111.
Claim 1 generally recites a method of acquiring an electrical signal comprising certain information by a first laser measuring device, determining a bubble particle size distribution function, and calculating a void volume, wherein the laser measuring device is located where it can measure scattered light passing through an electrolyte.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites determining a bubble particle size distribution function and calculating an instantaneous void volume, which both fall into the mathematical calculation category of abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The additional element, acquiring an electrical signal amounts to routine data gathering necessary to practice the judicial exception.
While there is an apparatus used (the first laser measuring device), “laser measuring device” is a functional descriptor without structural specificity—no details about laser type, wavelength, optical configuration, detection apparatus, or signal processing hardware.
The claim does not explain why this particular measurement approach is superior or what concrete technical improvement results from laser light scattering analysis.
The claim references “bubble particle size distribution function” and “instantaneous void volume” but does not specify the particular mathematical formulas, algorithms, or computational methods used.
“Acquiring,” “determining,” and “calculating” describe what is done functionally, not how particular machines accomplish it.
Technical details are missing, such as signal processing steps (filtering, amplification, demodulation), mathematical formulas evaluated, device positioning specifications, or measurement parameters or constraints.
Finally, while there are several ways of connecting the scattering of light from particles to the size of the particles (such as Rayleigh scattering for particles much smaller than the wavelength or Mie scattering when particles are of size comparable to wavelength), no particular way of performing the scattering analysis is claimed, nor is any nonconventional implementation recited.
The additional element fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In addition to the above, the practice of using a laser measuring device to study bubbles flowing is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Discussion of dependent claims 2-11:
Claims 2-4 add limitations that either solely contribute to the mathematical calculation (claim 4) or encompass embodiments that contribute only to the mathematical calculation (claims 2 and 3).
While claim 5 does contribute to the additional element, it still is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 expands both the abstract idea (cross-correlation operations and calculating flow speed) and the routine data gathering necessary to perform the judicial exception.
Claims 7-9 add to the aspect of the judicial exception expanded in claim 6.
Claims 10 and 11 merely recite a generic computer claimed at a high level of generality with which to perform the ineligible method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12:
Interpretation of the claim:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, with the exception of the imaging system, which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as described above. See MPEP 2111.
Claim 12 generally recites a system comprising a laser measuring device placed and configured to measure clattered light through an electrolyte, a determination unit configured to determine a bubble particle size distribution function, and a processing unit configured to calculate an instantaneous void volume.
Step 1:
Claim 12 recites a system, which falls into at least one statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 12 recites determining a bubble particle size distribution function and calculating an instantaneous void volume, which both fall into the mathematical calculation category of abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The additional element, a laser measuring device for acquiring an electrical signal amounts to routine data gathering necessary to practice the judicial exception.
While there is an apparatus used (the first laser measuring device), “laser measuring device” is a functional descriptor without structural specificity—no details about laser type, wavelength, optical configuration, detection apparatus, or signal processing hardware.
The claim does not explain why this particular measurement approach is superior or what concrete technical improvement results from laser light scattering analysis.
The claim references “bubble particle size distribution function” and “instantaneous void volume” but does not specify the particular mathematical formulas, algorithms, or computational methods used.
“Acquiring,” “determining,” and “calculating” describe what is done functionally, not how particular machines accomplish it.
Technical details are missing, such as signal processing steps (filtering, amplification, demodulation), mathematical formulas evaluated, device positioning specifications, or measurement parameters or constraints.
Finally, while there are several ways of connecting the scattering of light from particles to the size of the particles (such as Rayleigh scattering for particles much smaller than the wavelength or Mie scattering when particles are of size comparable to wavelength), no particular way of performing the scattering analysis is claimed, nor is any nonconventional implementation recited.
The additional element fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In addition to the above, the practice of using a laser measuring device to study bubbles flowing is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Conclusion
The courts have decided that natural phenomena, laws of nature, and abstract intellectual concepts, such as mental processes and mathematical calculations, are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work (Gottschalk v Benson, 409 U.S.63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). It is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements, such as a data input or detection step, does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank, 573 US, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ.2d 1976 (2014)).
Further, Applicant is cautioned not to introduce new matter beyond the scope of the original disclosure while amending the application.
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) 1-5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachalo (US patent publication 20190242814) in view of Han (US patent publication 20190305344).
Regarding claim 1, Bachalo teaches a method for implementing electrolyte monitoring, characterized by comprising:
acquiring an electrical signal comprising light intensity information (FIG. 1, light scattering system 104 and imaging system 107) by a first laser measuring device that is disposed in advance (paragraph 36 describes use of a laser as part of light scattering system 104), the light intensity information comprising information of light intensity of laser light scattered after passing through a fluid containing bubbles (paragraph 36);
determining a bubble particle size distribution function according to the acquired electrical signal (paragraph 41 describes the use of imaging system to provide reliable size information on the particles); and
calculating an instantaneous void volume of the fluid according to the determined bubble particle size distribution function (paragraph 47, final sentence);
wherein the first laser measuring device is disposed at a position where the scattered light intensity of the laser light passing through the fluid can be measured (paragraph 35 and FIG. 1 disclose that light scattering system 104 is coupled to input 102).
Bachalo performs the measurements to measure the bubbles and other contaminants in fuel rather than specifically in an electrolyte.
In the same field of endeavor of optically monitoring the electrolyte of a flow battery, Han teaches that an optical instrument is used to monitor an electrolyte (paragraph 15 describes how the measuring device is connected to the electrolyte inlet pipe). By attaching a measuring device to a flow battery, Han is able to perform real-time measurements on a battery without needing to extract a sample (paragraph 14), even while the battery is in operation (paragraph 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the optical contamination monitoring method of Bachalo to the flow battery of Han in order to monitor the health of the electrolyte in a battery rather than in a different form of energy storage.
Regarding claim 2, Bachalo, as modified by Han, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 1 (as described above)
Bachalo further teaches that determining bubble particle size distribution function information according to the acquired electrical signal comprises: pre-processing and demodulating the electrical signal (FIG. 15, using signal processor 1504) to obtain a demodulated signal (FIG. 15, the signal sent from signal processor 1504 to bus 1509); and determining the bubble particle size distribution function according to the obtained demodulated signal (FIG. 15, using the signal passed along the bus, originating from signal processor 1504).
Regarding claim 3, Bachalo, as modified by Han, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 2 (as described above).
Bachalo further teaches that the pre-processing comprises filtering (paragraph 38, separating signals caused by air bubbles from signals caused by water and solid particles is a form of signal filtering) and amplification (paragraph 36, final sentence).
Regarding claim 4, Bachalo, as modified by Han, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 1 (as described above).
Bachalo further teaches that the instantaneous void volume is εins, and the instantaneous void volume is calculated by the following calculation formula:
εins = n(R) ∙ V = n(R) ∙ (4/3)πR3;
where n(R) is a particle size distribution function of bubbles, R is a radius of a bubble particle, V is a volume of the bubble particle (paragraph 37 describes how the size distribution is used as a weighing factor to interpret the data and produce the concentration (i.e., total volume) of each contaminant. Note that the formula for the volume of a sphere was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as well as the tendency of tiny bubbles to form spherical shapes.), and
an included angle formed by a propagation direction of scattered light after the laser light is refracted and a propagation direction of a principal light beam is θ, and θ and the radius R of the bubble particle in the electrolyte satisfy:
I
θ
=
1
θ
∫
0
1
R
2
*
n
R
J
1
2
θ
R
K
d
R
, where I(θ) is the light intensity of the laser light scattered at an angle θ, K=2π/λ, λ is a wavelength of the laser light, and J1 is a Bayesian function of a first type (as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) above, this claim element appears to merely be a description of the physics of how light scatters from bubbles in a liquid. Since the same physics would necessarily apply to the bubbles in the fuel of Bachalo as to the bubbles in the electrolyte of the claimed invention (or the electrolyte of Han, for that matter), this claim element is considered to inherently be met by Bachalo to the same extent as it is met by the disclosed invention).
Regarding claim 5, Bachalo, as modified by Han, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 1 (as described above).
Bachalo further teaches that the first laser measuring device is disposed at any one of the following positions:
a tube wall of an inlet tube (FIG. 1, input 102, as described in paragraph 35);
a tube wall of an outlet tube (FIG. 1, output 114, as described in paragraph 35); and
on a branch tube wall of a main inlet and outlet tube of the electrolyte.
Bachalo does not teach that the inlet tube or outlet tube is an electrolyte inlet tube of a battery stack or an electrolyte outlet inlet tube of the battery stack.
In the same field of endeavor of optically monitoring the electrolyte of a flow battery, Han does teach that the inlet tube or outlet tube is an electrolyte inlet tube of a battery stack (paragraph 15) or an electrolyte outlet inlet tube of the battery stack. Placing the measurement device on an inlet pipe allows Han to measure the state of the electrolyte in real time as it moves through the flow battery (paragraph 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bachalo, as modified by Han, by placing the measurement devices on the electrolyte inlet tube of a battery stack to gain the predictable benefit of observing bubble concentration in real time as the electrolyte is entering the battery stack.
Regarding claim 10, Bachalo, as modified by Han, teaches or renders obvious a computer storage medium, storing a computer program therein, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the method for implementing electrolyte monitoring according to claim 1 is implemented (See memory 1505 in FIG. 15 and the final sentence of paragraph 93 of Bachalo, as well as the prior art rejection of claim 1 hereinabove.).
Regarding claim 11, Bachalo, as modified by Han, teaches or renders obvious a terminal (FIG. 15), comprising a memory (FIG. 15, memory 1505) and a processor (FIG. 15, CPU 1506), a computer program being saved in the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program in the memory; and when the computer program is executed by the processor, the method for implementing electrolyte monitoring according to claim 1 is implemented (final sentence of paragraph 93. Also see the prior art rejection of claim 1 hereinabove.).
Regarding claim 12, Bachalo teaches a system for implementing electrolyte monitoring, comprising a first laser measuring device (FIG. 1, light scattering system 104 and imaging system 107), a determination unit and a processing unit (FIG. 15, described in paragraph 93), wherein
the first laser measuring device is disposed in advance at a position where scattered light intensity of laser light (paragraph 36 describes use of a laser as part of light scattering system 104) passing through an electrolyte can be measured, and configured to acquire an electrical signal comprising light intensity information, the light intensity information comprising information of light intensity of the laser light scattered after passing through the electrolyte containing bubbles (paragraph 36);
the determination unit is configured to determine a bubble particle size distribution function according to the acquired electrical signal (paragraph 41 describes the use of imaging system to provide reliable size information on the particles); and
the processing unit is configured to calculate an instantaneous void volume of the electrolyte according to the determined bubble particle size distribution function (paragraph 47, final sentence).
Bachalo performs the measurements to measure the bubbles and other contaminants in fuel rather than specifically in an electrolyte.
In the same field of endeavor of optically monitoring the electrolyte of a flow battery, Han teaches that an optical instrument is used to monitor an electrolyte (paragraph 15 describes how the measuring device is connected to the electrolyte inlet pipe). By attaching a measuring device to a flow battery, Han is able to perform real-time measurements on a battery without needing to extract a sample (paragraph 14), even while the battery is in operation (paragraph 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the optical contamination monitoring method of Bachalo to the flow battery of Han in order to monitor the health of the electrolyte in a battery rather than in a different form of energy storage.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachalo (US patent publication 20190242814) in view of Han (US patent publication 20190305344), further in view of Bertola (non-patent literature “Two-Phase Flow Measurement Techniques”).
Regarding claim 6, Bachalo, as modified by Han, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 1 (as described above).
Bachalo further teaches acquiring a first feedback signal of laser light incident on the electrolyte by the first laser measuring device (FIG. 1, light scattering system 104 or imaging system 107);
While Bachalo does teach acquiring a second feedback signal of the laser light incident on the electrolyte by a second laser measuring device that is disposed in advance (the other of light scattering system 104 or imaging system 107), Bachalo does not use the multiple optical sensors in performing a cross-correlation operation with respect to the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal, and solving a time taken for displacement of the electrolyte from upstream to downstream according to a correlation function obtained by the cross-correlation operation; and
according to the time taken for displacement of the electrolyte from upstream to downstream and a spacing between the first laser measuring device and the second laser measuring device, determining a flow speed of the electrolyte;
wherein the second laser measuring device is disposed upstream or downstream of the first laser measuring device, and the first laser measuring device and the second laser measuring device are spaced apart by a preset distance.
In the same field of endeavor of measuring flow and properties in fluids with more than one phase (such as liquid with bubbles), Bertola does teach acquiring a first feedback signal of laser light incident on the electrolyte by the first laser measuring device (section 4.2, signal S1);
acquiring a second feedback signal of the laser light incident on the electrolyte by a second laser measuring device that is disposed in advance (section 4.2, signal S2);
performing a cross-correlation operation with respect to the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal, and solving a time taken for displacement of the electrolyte from upstream to downstream according to a correlation function obtained by the cross-correlation operation (section 4.2, using equation 38); and
according to the time taken for displacement of the electrolyte from upstream to downstream and a spacing between the first laser measuring device and the second laser measuring device, determining a flow speed of the electrolyte (FIG. 21, using the formula for u);
wherein the second laser measuring device is disposed upstream or downstream of the first laser measuring device, and the first laser measuring device and the second laser measuring device are spaced apart by a preset distance (FIG. 21, note the distance d). By performing cross-correlation analysis, Bertola is able to measure the velocity of the flow of a multiphase fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bachalo, as modified by Han, with the cross-correlated velocimetry of Bertola to be able to measure how fast the electrolyte moves through the tube while monitoring the bubbles therein.
Regarding claim 7, Bachalo, as modified by Han, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 6 (as described above).
Bachalo does not explicitly teach that after determining the flow speed of the electrolyte, the method further comprises: according to the determined flow speed of the electrolyte and a predetermined pipe cross-sectional area, determining an instantaneous flow rate of the electrolyte.
after determining the flow speed of the electrolyte, the method further comprises: according to the determined flow speed of the electrolyte and a predetermined pipe cross-sectional area, determining an instantaneous flow rate of the electrolyte.
In the same field of endeavor of measuring flow and properties in fluids with more than one phase (such as liquid with bubbles), Bertola does teach that after determining the flow speed of the electrolyte, the method further comprises: according to the determined flow speed of the electrolyte and a predetermined pipe cross-sectional area, determining an instantaneous flow rate of the electrolyte (see section 4.1, equation 33,
V
k
˙
, where k=L). By performing calculations, Bertola is able to characterize the multi-phase flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bachalo, as modified by Han and Bertola, with the further calculations of Bertola in order to characterize the flow of a multi-phase fluid, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Bachalo, as modified by Han, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 7 (as described above).
Bachalo further teaches that after determining the instantaneous flow rate of the electrolyte, the method further comprises: dividing the instantaneous void volume by the instantaneous flow rate to obtain an instantaneous void fraction of the electrolyte (paragraph 37 discusses calculating the concentration of individual contaminants (which, for bubbles, would be the void fraction), taking into account the volume probed by the optics).
Regarding claim 9, Bachalo, as modified by Han, teaches or renders obvious the method according to claim 7 (as described above).
Bachalo further teaches that after determining the instantaneous flow rate of the electrolyte, the method further comprises:
according to the determined instantaneous flow rate, performing closed-loop control on a circulation pump by using a preset operation and control policy to adjust a flow rate of the fluid (paragraph 75 discusses controlling the fluid flow based on whether the amount of gas in the fluid is above a predetermined threshold).
Bachalo performs the measurements to measure the bubbles and other contaminants in fuel rather than specifically in an electrolyte entering and exiting a stack.
In the same field of endeavor of optically monitoring the electrolyte of a flow battery, Han teaches measurements specifically in an electrolyte entering and exiting a stack (paragraph 15). By performing measurements in a flow battery, the performance of the battery may be monitored in real time without needing to extract a sample (paragraph 14), even while the battery is in operation (paragraph 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bachalo, as modified by Han and Bertola, by doing the measurements on an electrolyte entering and exiting a stack to gain the predictable benefit of observing bubble concentration in real time as the electrolyte is entering the battery stack.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent publication 20250087775, which has an effectively filed date before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and inventorship that is not identical to that of the instant application, qualifying as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), but lists the same Applicant as the instant application and has overlapping inventors. The status as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Foreign patent publication CN 116879389 A was published less than a year prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so qualifying as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), but has overlapping inventors. The status as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) might be overcome by an analogous showing that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) or that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights