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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered. All previous objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 17, 21 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 11, the phrase “decent” should be changed to “descent”; in claim 17, line 1, the phrase “is for a fuel cell” is redundant as this idea was already expressed in claim 1; in claim 23, line 1, the preamble of dependency on “23” should be changed to “19”; in claim 23, line 2, the phrase “a fuel cell” should be changed to “the fuel cell”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 and its dependents 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. In claim 1, line 5, recitation is made of “the first volume”; however, in line 8, recitation is made of “a first volume” which creates uncertainty between these volumes; are they one and the same or different entities? Examiner requests clarification and/or amendment on this matter.
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) 1-2, 9 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton (US20030022050) in view of Fuller (GB190403977A).
Claim 1: Barton discloses a fluid discharge system (Fig. 11), the system comprising an inlet port (note port around 844) in fluid communication with a fluid source; a discharge port (note port near 854); and a vessel (842) comprising an adjustable wall (850), wherein the adjustable wall forms a fluid tight seal between a first volume within the vessel partially bounded by a first side of the adjustable wall (Fig. 11), and a second volume of the vessel partially bounded by a second side of the adjustable wall (Fig. 11), wherein the adjustable wall is configured to move between a first position and a second position within the vessel (Fig. 11), wherein moving the adjustable wall from the second position to the first position within the vessel increases a size of the first volume and draws fluid through the inlet port into the first volume (Fig. 11), and wherein moving the adjustable wall from the first position to the second position within the vessel decreases the size of the first volume and expels fluid through the discharge port from the first volume at a pressure greater than a pressure of the fluid source (Fig. 11). Barton further discloses that the fluid discharge system is configured for a fuel cell (see Abstract/Title). Barton is not explicit about a single vessel port arranged such that the first volume fluidly communicates with the inlet port and the discharge port via the vessel port or that, during operation, the vessel is oriented such that a portion of gas present in a first volume is expelled through the vessel port prior to expelling a portion of non-compressible fluid in the first volume. However, Fuller teaches a diaphragm pump (d) arranged inside a vessel (c) which utilizes a single vessel port (h) arranged such that the first volume fluidly communicates with an inlet port (i) and a discharge port (j) via the vessel port such that, during operation, the vessel is oriented such that any gas present in the first volume is expelled through the vessel port prior to expelling a portion of non-compressible fluid in the first volume (in Fuller’s arrangement, any gas present would move upward and be expelled first due to it lower density vs liquid/water). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to substitute Fuller’s single vessel port arrangement in the vessel of Barton so as to simplify the structure from two openings to one, saving manufacturing cost/effort (see Fuller, page 1, lines 9-10).
Claim 2: Barton and Fuller teach the previous limitations. Modified Barton further discloses that the adjustable wall comprises at least one of a bellows, a diaphragm, a bladder, and a piston (Fig. 11, note element 850).
Claim 9: Barton and Fuller teach the previous limitations. Modified Barton further teaches that a predetermined volume of a non-compressible fluid is maintained in the first volume during movement of the adjustable wall between the first position and the second position (Fig. 1, Examiner noting that the movable wall will be prevented from actuating into a fully closed position due to sharp corners within the vessel c, thereby maintaining a particular amount of non-compressible fluid every stroke).
Claim 13: Barton and Fuller teach the previous limitations. Modified Barton further teaches a first fluid conduit (note Fig. 1 in Fuller, note conduit around f) connecting the vessel port and the fluid source; and a second fluid conduit (note Fig. 1 in Fuller, note conduit around j) connecting the vessel port and the discharge port.
Claim 14: Barton and Fuller teach the previous limitations. Modified Barton further teaches the first fluid conduit comprises a first flow valve (f) configured to control fluid communication between the first volume and the fluid source (note Fig. 1 in Fuller); and the second fluid conduit comprises a second flow valve (g) configured to control fluid communication between the first volume and the discharge port (Fig. 1).
Claim 15: Barton and Fuller teach the previous limitations. Modified Barton further teaches the first fluid conduit comprises a first check valve (f) configured to inhibit fluid flow from the vessel port to the fluid source (note Fig. 1 in Fuller); and the second fluid conduit comprises a second check valve (g) configured to inhibit fluid flow from the discharge port to the vessel port (note Fig. 1 in Fuller).
Claim 16: Barton and Fuller teach the previous limitations. Barton further discloses that the water source comprises at least one of water produced by the fuel cell, environmental water produced by condensation in a cavity of the fuel cell, and water produced in a secondary process of the fuel cell (see Fig. 11, noting the reactant exhaust chamber 832; paragraph 62).
Claim 17: Barton and Fuller teach the previous limitations. Barton further discloses that the fluid discharge system is for a fuel cell and the fluid source comprises at least one of an anode outlet of the fuel cell, a cathode outlet of the fuel cell, and a water source outlet of the fuel cell (see Fig. 11, noting the reactant exhaust chamber 832 and inlet/conduit 834/835; see also paragraph 62).
Claim 18: Barton discloses a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell (Figs. 1-7, Abstract); Barton, as modified by Fuller, further teaches the fluid discharge system of claim 17 in fluid communication with the fuel cell (see Barton, Fig. 11 as well as the discussion above involving claim 1).
Claim(s) 19-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanBerg (US 5,202,194) in view of Spears (GB597106A).
Claim 19: VanBerg discloses a method for discharging byproducts from a fuel cell into a high pressure environment (Fig. 2), the method comprising enabling fluid communication between a fluid source (12/26) and a first volume of a vessel (Examiner noting volume within the pump vessel 42) and expelling at least a portion of the byproducts through a discharge port (52/54) at a pressure greater than a pressure of the fluid source (Fig. 2, which pressure outcome is the result of using a pump, i.e., increasing the fluid’s pressure from an inlet pressure to a higher outlet pressure).
Van Berg is not explicit about the details of its pump vessel comprising an adjustable wall therein, the adjustable wall partially bounding the first volume and moving the adjustable wall from a second position to a first position, thereby increasing a size of the first volume and drawing byproducts into the first volume; after the fluids are drawn into the first volume, inhibiting fluid communication between the fluid source and the first volume of the vessel; enabling fluid communication between the first volume and a discharge port, moving the adjustable wall from the first position to the second position thereby reducing the size of the first volume and expelling at least a portion of the fluids from the first volume through the discharge port such that, during operation, the vessel is oriented such that a portion of gas present in the first volume is expelled prior to expelling a portion of a non-compressible fluid in the first volume. However, the virtues of using an adjustable wall pump are myriad, such as having gas tight operation, lower maintenance, leak-free operation and the ability to handle a variety of fluids. Fuller teaches a useful pump vessel (Fig. 1) comprising an adjustable wall (d) therein, the adjustable wall partially bounding the first volume and moving the adjustable wall from a second position to a first position, thereby increasing a size of the first volume and drawing fluids into the first volume (as can be appreciated from Fig. 1); after the fluids are drawn into the first volume, inhibiting fluid communication between the fluid source and the first volume of the vessel (as can be appreciated from Fig. 1); and enabling fluid communication between the first volume and a discharge port (Fig. 1), and moving the adjustable wall from the first position to the second position thereby reducing the size of the first volume and expelling at least a portion of the fluids from the first volume through the discharge port (as can be appreciated from Fig. 1). Fuller further teaches its vessel is oriented such that any gas present in the first volume is expelled through the vessel port prior to expelling a portion of non-compressible fluid in the first volume (in Fuller’s arrangement, any gas present would move upward and be expelled first due to it lower density vs liquid/water). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to substitute Fuller’s single vessel port arrangement in the vessel of Barton so as to simplify the structure from two openings to one, saving manufacturing cost/effort (see Fuller, page 1, lines 9-10).
Claim 20: Van Berg and Fuller teach the previous limitations. Van Berg further discloses that the byproducts comprise at least one of oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, an impurity/inert gas, and water (Fig. 2, note 36).
Claim 21: Van Berg and Fuller teach the previous limitations. Van Berg further discloses that the byproducts are expelled through the discharge outlet port into s well seawater having an environmental pressure greater than a reactant pressure of the fuel cell (see Abstract and col. 5, lines 26-32). While not mentioning seawater explicitly, the circumstances are very similar in that the well and seawater situations provide an underwater context with which the pump’s output must overcome hydrostatic pressures. As such an operator would not be faces with a meaningful difference in pump operation between the seawater and well situations and it would be obvious to try one along with the other. Further, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 23: Van Berg and Fuller teach the previous limitations. Van Berg further discloses that the byproducts are produced during operation of a fuel cell (12) and the fuel cell comprises the fluid source (Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 10-12 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not further disclose or reasonably teach in combination a hydraulic pump and a fluid reservoir, wherein the hydraulic pump is configured to introduce a non-compressible fluid into the second volume of the vessel to move the adjustable wall from the first position to the second position, the hydraulic pump also configured to remove at least a portion of the non-compressible fluid from the second volume of the vessel to move the adjustable wall from the second position to the first position.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record does not further disclose or reasonably teach in combination the discharge port comprises an inverted tube defining a tube cavity and wherein, during operation of the system, the inverted tube is oriented such that a gas barrier is maintained in the tube cavity.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art of record does not further disclose or reasonably teach in combination introducing a non-compressible fluid to the second volume moves the adjustable wall within the vessel from the first position to the second position; and removing at least a portion of the non-compressible fluid from the second volume moves the adjustable wall within the vessel from the second position to the first position.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has newly utilizes the Fuller reference to read upon the newly configured claim 1 and 19 and some of their dependent claims.
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 NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 EST.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746