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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the arguments received 05/12/2025:
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claims 7 and 21 have been canceled.
The rejection under 35 USC 112 has been overcome in light of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 17 are objected to for reciting “…does not comprise a device to process the exhaust to remove impurities, other than water, prior to storage in the tank” and “…does not comprise processing the exhaust to remove impurities, other than water, prior to storage in the tank” respectively. However, these claims do not positively recite a device or process to remove water from the exhaust prior to storage in the tank and therefore it is unclear whether such a step is claimed or optional. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (WO 2018/195182 A2) in view of Elwart et al. (US 2007/0190377).
Regarding claim 1, Moore teaches a vehicle comprising a SOFC configured to convert a fuel comprising a hydrocarbon, an alcohol, or both, to an exhaust comprising CO2 (pg. 13 [22-31]; pg. 22-23 [29-26]); and an exhaust tank configured to store, under pressure, the exhaust comprising CO2, the tank comprising an inlet port configured to receive the exhaust from the device (pg. 22-23 [29-26]; claims 26-27; Fig. 5.7).
Moore is silent in explicitly teaching the vehicle is motorized; however, Elwart, in a similar field of endeavor related to a SOFC providing electrical energy for a vehicle, teaches using a SOFC to provide electrical energy to a motorized vehicle (P41-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the vehicle of Moore be a motorized vehicle, as taught by Elwart and as a well-known type of vehicle using a SOFC energy. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Moore teaches water can possibly be stored and teaches water and CO2 can be easily separable (pg. 5 [23]; pg. 23 [24-26]. The water can be filtered and/or used elsewhere within the energy system (pg. 15).
Therefore, although Moore shows no device for processing exhaust prior to storage, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to not store water, based on the teachings within Moore, and thus comprise a step of water removal before storing the exhaust, to utilize the water to increase efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 3, modified Moore teaches another tank, or fuel tank, configured to store, under pressure, the fuel comprising the hydrocarbon, the alcohol, or both and an outlet port configured to deliver the fuel to the device (claims 26-27; Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 4, modified Moore teaches the tank is a co-storage tank configured to store, under pressure, the fuel comprising the hydrocarbon, the alcohol, or both, and the exhaust comprising CO2, the co-storage tank further comprising an outlet port configured to deliver the fuel to the device (claims 26-27; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Moore teaches a partition that separates the co-storage tank into a first chamber for the fuel and a second chamber for the exhaust (claims 26-27; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, modified Moore teaches the partition is self-adjustable, or moves in response to a pressure differential (claims 26-27; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, modified Moore teaches the SOFC comprising an anode inlet port configured to receive the fuel from the outlet port of the co-storage tank and an anode outlet port configured to deliver the exhaust to the inlet port of the co-storage tank (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, modified Moore teaches a partition that separates the co-storage tank into a first chamber for the fuel and a second chamber for the exhaust (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, modified Moore teaches the partition is self-adjustable, or moves in response to a pressure differential (claims 26-27; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, modified Moore teaches the SOFC further comprises a cathode inlet port configured to receive air (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, modified Moore teaches a compressor configured to compress the exhaust prior to delivery to the co-storage tank (pg. 10 [26-28]; pg. 12 [3-8])
Regarding claim 14, modified Moore teaches a reformer configured to at least partially convert the fuel to H2 prior to delivery to the SOFC, or reforming the fuel to a syngas (pg. 6 [10-11]; pg. 8 [32]; pg. 23 [3-5]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Moore in teaches the SOFC provides electrical energy to the vehicle (claim 25), but is silent in explicitly teaching the electrical communication with a rechargeable battery and an electric motor; however, Elwart, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle comprising a SOFC (P78).
Elwart teaches using the SOFC in the vehicle for electrical communication with a battery or motor to power accessories and move the wheels (P44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the electrical energy from the SOFC of the vehicle of Moore in electrical communication with a vehicles rechargeable battery and electric motor to power the vehicle components. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, modified Moore teaches a method comprising converting the fuel into the exhaust comprising CO2 and capturing the exhaust in the tank (pg. 22-23 [29-26]; claims 26-27; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, modified Moore teaches water can possibly be stored and teaches water and CO2 can be easily separable (pg. 5 [23]; pg. 23 [24-26]. The water can be filtered and/or used elsewhere within the energy system (pg. 15).
Therefore, although Moore shows no device for processing exhaust prior to storage, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to not store water, based on the teachings within Moore, and thus comprise a step of water removal before storing the exhaust, to utilize the water to increase efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 18, modified Moore teaches the method comprising flowing air into the SOFC and flowing the fuel from the co-storage tank into the SOFC to convert the fuel into the exhaust comprising CO2 and generate electricity; and capturing the exhaust in the co-storage tank (pg. 22-23 [29-26]; claims 26-27; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, Moore teaches the SOFC provides electrical energy to the vehicle (claim 25), but is silent in explicitly teaching using the electrical energy to charge a rechargeable battery; however, Elwart, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle comprising a SOFC (P78). Elwart teaches using the SOFC in the vehicle for powering and electrical communication with a battery (P44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the electrical energy from the SOFC of the vehicle of Moore in electrical communication with a rechargeable battery to power the vehicle components. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, modified Moore teaches releasing the exhaust comprising the CO2 to a system configured to convert the CO2 to a renewable fuel (pg. 23 [24-26]; Fig. 1)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Moore as applied to at least claim 12 above, and further in view of Laven et al. (US 2011/0223507).
Regarding claim 13, modified Moore is silent in teaching an expander configured to expand the fuel prior to delivery to the SOFC; however, Laven, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a SOFC with a system for vehicles (P54).
Laven teaches the vehicle comprising an expander between the fuel cell and the storage unit, or an expander can be used to control flow of energy between the storing assembly and fuel cell, the temperature of the fuel cell, and the flow of fluids to the fuel cell (P52.70-73).
Although Laven is silent in teaching in explicitly teaching the expander configured to expand the fuel prior to delivery to the SOFC, it would have been obvious to use the expander taught by Laven to expand the fuel prior to delivery to the SOFC of modified Moore, because the fuel is stored as a pressurized gas and pressure reduction is necessary for the reaction at the SOFC to proceed without strain to the equipment. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to implement an expander to maintain a fuel cell of a certain temperature to maintain longevity. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable. MPEP 2143
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752