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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are presented on pages 10-11 that Mak would not teach a distribution assembly 112 (relied upon for teaching a coupling unit) between a junction box and a frame rail due to teaching a junction box 312 that is not disposed between the junction box 306 and the frame rail. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that the rejection relies upon the location of junction box 306, frame rails 300, and electric distribution assembly 112 as shown in fig. 3 and does not cite junction box 312. The fact that Mak teaches a second junction box would not teach away from the arrangement of junction box 306 and distribution assembly 112.
The arguments are presented on pages 11-12 that Katano and Mak would not teach the claimed second part of the junction box. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Katano teaches a first part (lower base) overlapping the fuel cell in a horizontal direction (lower part of case 35 containing junction box 44 is side by side with fuel cell 21 as seen in fig. 2-3) and a second part extending from the first part in a vertical direction (vertical walls extending from base as seen in fig. 6) [0009, 0066, 0080, 0088, 0091, fig. 2-3, fig. 6]. Furthermore, Mak teaches the junction box is located in the electric distribution assembly [0041, fig. 3], the upper portion (second part) of the junction box should also be contained in the electric distribution assembly and the coupling unit (electric distribution assembly) would be located between the second part and frame when combined with the fuel cell device of Katano.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano et al. (US 2013/0045398 A1, hereafter Katano) in view of Mak et al. (US 2022/0348066 A1, hereafter Mak).
With regard to claim 1, Katano teaches a flat fuel cell device comprising:
a fuel cell (21) comprising a cell stack in which a plurality of unit cells are stacked [0066];
a junction box electrically connected to the fuel cell comprising a first part (lower base) overlapping the fuel cell in a horizontal direction (lower part of case 35 containing junction box 44 is side by side with fuel cell 21 as seen in fig. 2-3) and a second part extending from the first part in a vertical direction (vertical walls extending from base as seen in fig. 6) [0009, 0066, 0080, 0088, 0091, fig. 2-3, fig. 6];
an air-processing device configured to manage inflow and outflow of air containing oxygen between an outside and the fuel cell (air compressor and valves in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) [0080]; and
a hydrogen processing device configured to manage inflow and outflow of hydrogen to and from the fuel cell (fuel gas pump and valves in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) [0067, 0080]; and
wherein each of the junction box (in case 35), the air-processing device (in fluid supply/discharge unit 22), and the hydrogen processing device (in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) are disposed so as to be contiguous with the fuel cell in a horizontal direction (as seen in fig. 2-3 the components are side by side with fuel cell 21) [0066, 0080, 0088, fig. 2-3].
Katano teaches a system frame (vehicle with bottom plate 11) to which the fuel cell and junction box are mounted [0074, 0077, 0130, fig. 2-3, fig. 16] but does not teach a coupling unit disposed between a side portion of the junction box and a side portion of the system frame in a horizontal direction to couple the junction box to the system frame. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mak teaches a fuel cell vehicle with a junction box (306) coupled to a frame (frame rails 300) with a coupling unit (electric distribution assembly) between a side (inner horizontal) portion of the junction box and a side portion of the system frame (outer sidewall of frame rail 300) in a horizontal direction [0029, 0041, fig. 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the frame and coupling unit arrangement of Mak with the junction box of Katano for the benefit of even weight distribution [Mak 0041]. Katano and Mak would not explicitly teach that the coupling unit (electric distribution assembly) is disposed between a side portion of the second part of junction box and a side portion of the system frame. However, since Mak teaches the junction box is located in the electric distribution assembly [0041, fig. 3], the upper portion (second part) of the junction box should also be contained in the electric distribution assembly and the coupling unit (electric distribution assembly) would be located between the second part and frame when combined with the fuel cell device of Katano.
With regard to claim 2, Katano teaches a cooling-medium-processing device (coolant supply pipes in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) configured to manage inflow and outflow of a cooling medium to and from the fuel cell, the cooling-medium-processing device being disposed so as to be contiguous with the fuel cell in the horizontal direction (as seen in fig. 2-3 the components are side by side with fuel cell 21) [0066-0067, 0080, 0088, fig. 2-3].
With regard to claim 3, Katano teaches a portion of the hydrogen-processing device (fuel gas pump and valves in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) is disposed in a side area in a left extension area extending from the left area in as second direction (unit 22 is left of fuel cell 21 as seen in fig. 3) [0067, 0080, fig. 3].
With regard to claim 4, Katano teaches the cooling medium processing device (coolant supply pipes in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) is disposed in the left area (unit 22 is left of fuel cell 21 as seen in fig. 3) [0067, 0080, fig. 3]. Katano teaches a hydrogen processing device (fuel gas pump and valves in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) [0067, 0080] but does not explicitly teach it is located in a right area. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would perform the same functions and only require a rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
With regard to claim 5, Katano teaches the hydrogen processing device (fuel gas pump and valves in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) is disposed in the left area (unit 22 is left of fuel cell 21 as seen in fig. 3) [0067, 0080, fig. 3]. Katano teaches a cooling medium processing device (coolant supply pipes in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) [0067, 0080, fig. 3] but does not explicitly teach it is located in a right area. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would perform the same functions and only require a rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
With regard to claim 6, Katano teaches a junction box (in case 35) [0009, 0088 [0009, 0066, 0080, 0088, fig. 2-3] but does not explicitly teach it is in a rear area. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would perform the same functions and only require a rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
With regard to claim 18, Katano teaches a flat fuel cell device comprising:
a fuel cell (21) comprising a cell stack in which a plurality of unit cells are stacked [0066];
a junction box electrically connected to the fuel cell comprising a first part (lower base) overlapping the fuel cell in a horizontal direction (lower part of case 35 containing junction box 44 is side by side with fuel cell 21 as seen in fig. 2-3) and a second part extending from the first part in a vertical direction (vertical walls extending from base as seen in fig. 6) [0009, 0066, 0080, 0088, 0091, fig. 2-3, fig. 6];
an air-processing device configured to manage inflow and outflow of air containing oxygen between an outside and the fuel cell (air compressor and valves in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) [0080]; and
a hydrogen processing device configured to manage inflow and outflow of hydrogen to and from the fuel cell (fuel gas pump and valves in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) [0067, 0080]; and
wherein the fuel cell has a planar shape (planar fuel cell 21 as seen in fig. 2) that is surrounded by the junction box (in case 35), the air-processing device (in fluid supply/discharge unit 22), and the hydrogen processing device (in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) in a horizontal direction (as seen in fig. 2-3 the components are side by side with fuel cell 21) [0066, 0080, 0088, fig. 2-3].
Katano teaches a system frame (vehicle with bottom plate 11) to which the fuel cell and junction box are mounted [0074, 0077, 0130, fig. 2-3, fig. 16] but does not teach a coupling unit disposed between a side portion of the junction box and a side portion of the system frame in a horizontal direction to couple the junction box to the system frame. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mak teaches a fuel cell vehicle with a junction box (306) coupled to a frame (frame rails 300) with a coupling unit (electric distribution assembly) between a side (inner horizontal) portion of the junction box and a side portion of the system frame (outer sidewall of frame rail 300) in a horizontal direction [0029, 0041, fig. 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the frame and coupling unit arrangement of Mak with the junction box of Katano for the benefit of even weight distribution [Mak 0041]. Katano and Mak would not explicitly teach that the coupling unit (electric distribution assembly) is disposed between a side portion of the second part of junction box and a side portion of the system frame. However, since Mak teaches the junction box is located in the electric distribution assembly [0041], the upper portion (second part) of the junction box should also be contained in the electric distribution assembly and the coupling unit (electric distribution assembly) would be located between the second part and frame when combined with the fuel cell device of Katano.
With regard to claim 19, Katano teaches a flat fuel cell device comprising:
a fuel cell (21) comprising a cell stack in which a plurality of unit cells are stacked [0066];
a junction box electrically connected to the fuel cell comprising a first part (lower base) overlapping the fuel cell in a horizontal direction (lower part of case 35 containing junction box 44 is side by side with fuel cell 21 as seen in fig. 2-3) and a second part extending from the first part in a vertical direction (vertical walls extending from base as seen in fig. 6) [0009, 0066, 0080, 0088, 0091, fig. 2-3, fig. 6];
an air-processing device configured to manage inflow and outflow of air containing oxygen between an outside and the fuel cell (air compressor and valves in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) [0080]; and
a hydrogen processing device configured to manage inflow and outflow of hydrogen to and from the fuel cell (fuel gas pump and valves in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) [0067, 0080];
a cooling-medium-processing device (coolant supply pipes in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) configured to manage inflow and outflow of a cooling medium to and from the fuel cell, the cooling-medium-processing device being disposed so as to be contiguous with the fuel cell in the horizontal direction (as seen in fig. 2-3 the components are side by side with fuel cell 21) [0066-0067, 0080, 0088, fig. 2-3]; and
wherein the fuel cell is surrounded by the junction box (in case 35), the air-processing device (in fluid supply/discharge unit 22), the hydrogen processing device (in fluid supply/discharge unit 22), and the cooling-medium-processing device in a horizontal direction (as seen in fig. 2-3 the components are side by side with fuel cell 21) [0066, 0080, 0088, fig. 2-3].
wherein the fuel cell (21), the junction box (in case 35), the air-processing device (in fluid supply/discharge unit 22), the hydrogen processing device (in fluid supply/discharge unit 22), and the cooling-medium-processing device (in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) do not overlap each other in a vertical direction (as seen in fig. 2-3 the components are side by side with fuel cell 21 without any vertically overlapping areas) [0066, 0080, 0088, fig. 2-3].
Katano teaches a system frame (vehicle with bottom plate 11) to which the fuel cell and junction box are mounted [0074, 0077, 0130, fig. 2-3, fig. 16] but does not teach a coupling unit disposed between a side portion of the junction box and a side portion of the system frame in a horizontal direction to couple the junction box to the system frame. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mak teaches a fuel cell vehicle with a junction box (306) coupled to a frame (frame rails 300) with a coupling unit (electric distribution assembly) between a side (inner horizontal) portion of the junction box and a side portion of the system frame (outer sidewall of frame rail 300) in a horizontal direction [0029, 0041, fig. 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the frame and coupling unit arrangement of Mak with the junction box of Katano for the benefit of even weight distribution [Mak 0041]. Katano and Mak would not explicitly teach that the coupling unit (electric distribution assembly) is disposed between a side portion of the second part of junction box and a side portion of the system frame. However, since Mak teaches the junction box is located in the electric distribution assembly [0041], the upper portion (second part) of the junction box should also be contained in the electric distribution assembly and the coupling unit (electric distribution assembly) would be located between the second part and frame when combined with the fuel cell device of Katano.
With regard to claim 20, Katano teaches a portion of the hydrogen-processing device (fuel gas pump and valves in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) is disposed in a side area in a left extension area extending from the left area in as second direction (unit 22 is left of fuel cell 21 as seen in fig. 3) [0067, 0080, fig. 3].
Claim(s) 7-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano and Mak as applied to claims 1-6 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (US 2010/0173219 A1, hereafter Ogawa).
With regard to claim 7, Katano teaches an air compressor, humidifier, cutoff valve, and discharge pipe [0074, 0080] but does not explicitly teach the claimed details of the moisture controller. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ogawa teaches the use of a moisture controller (humidifier) that humidifies air discharged from an air compressor with oxygen dehumidified from a fuel cell exhaust prior to being discharged to the outside [0031, fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the moisture controller (humidifier) configuration with the fuel cell of modified Katano for the benefit of using recovered moisture to humidify supplied air [Ogawa 0031].
With regard to claim 8, modified Katano teaches an air processing device (air compressor and valves in fluid supply/discharge unit 22) [0080] but does not explicitly teach the device is located in a front area. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would perform the same functions and only require a rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
With regard to claim 9, Katano teaches a manifold (unit pipes 25 and fluid supply/discharge unit 22) which would interconnect the air cut off valve and fuel cell [0085, fig. 3].
With regard to claim 10, Katano teaches a coolant inlet (supply pipe) and outlet (discharge) pipe and teaches the pipes are oriented toward a front area pipes leaving (fluid supply/discharge unit 22) are oriented forward as seen in fig. 3 [0080, fig. 3].
With regard to claim 12, Katano teaches an exhaust hose configured to discharge reactant gas to the outside (discharge pipe) [0080, fig. 3]. Katano does not explicitly teach the claimed details of the moisture controller or exhaust duct. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ogawa teaches the use of a moisture controller (humidifier) that humidifies air discharged from an air compressor with oxygen dehumidified from a fuel cell exhaust prior to being discharged to the outside and an exhaust duct defining a path through which the output from the moisture controller (humidifier) passes (exhaust line leaving humidifier 4 through valve 5 seen in fig. 1) [0031, fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the moisture controller (humidifier) configuration with the fuel cell of Katano for the benefit of using recovered moisture to humidify supplied air [Ogawa 0031].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano, Mak, and Ogawa as applied to claims 7-10 and 12 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0344046 A1, hereafter Lee).
With regard to claim 11, modified Katano would teach a humidifier and cut-off valve as detailed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Modified Katano would not teach the claimed valve with multiple opening/closing portions. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a valve (unified valve module 50) with a first opening/closing portion (first valve 51) to discharge air from a humidifier (34) to a fuel cell in a first horizontal direction (right) and a second opening/closing portion (second valve 55) configured to discharge oxygen discharged from the fuel cell to the humidifier in a second horizontal direction (left) [0061, 0075, fig. 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the dual opening/closing valve arrangement of Lee with the fuel cell of modified Katano for the benefit of preventing valve freezing and fuel cell stack degradation [Lee 0033-0034].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano, Mak, and Ogawa as applied to claims 7-10 and 12 above, and further in view of Haase et al. (US 2015/0111123 A1, hereafter Haase).
With regard to claim 13, modified Katano does not explicitly teach a multi-pipe exhaust. However, in the same field of endeavor, Haase teaches the use of multiple pipes for fuel cell exhaust [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the multiple pipes of Haase with the exhaust of modified Katano for the benefit of being able to adjust exhaust speed by deactivating pipes [Haase 0008].
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano, Mak, and Ogawa as applied to claims 7-10 and 12 above, and further in view of Ushio et al. (US 2007/0031710 A1, hereafter Ushio).
With regard to claim 14, Katano does not explicitly teach the claimed hydrogen discharge components. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ushio teaches a blower (circulation pump 6) configured to suction and discharge hydrogen and condensate water [0051, fig. 1]; a fluid classifier (gas liquid separator 5) configured to separate the hydrogen and condensate water discharged from the blower (after cycling through anode channel 1a) [0051, fig. 1]; an ejector configured to supply the hydrogen separated by the fluid classifier (gas liquid separator) to the fuel cell [0045, 0051, fig. 1]; and a drain/purge valve (control valve 10 and valve below gas liquid separator 5) connected to the exhaust duct and configured to discharge condensate water and reactant gas separated by the fluid classifier [0051, fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hydrogen discharge components (gas liquid separator, pump, nozzle, valves) taught by Ushio with the fuel cell of Katano for the benefit of improving efficiency by re-circulating unreacted fuel gas without flooding the fuel cell system [Ushio 0015].
With regard to claim 16, Katano and Ushio teach the hydrogen discharge components as detailed in the rejection of claim 14 above. Modified Katano would not explicitly teach the claimed outlet being located at a higher position than the drain/purge valve. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art. While the drawings of Ushio are not taught to be to scale, Ushio teaches embodiments with drain purge valves (under gas liquid separator 5 seen in fig. 4) being located at lower levels than fuel cell outlets (line from fuel cell 1 to gas liquid separator 5 seen in fig. 4). This would suggest and render obvious placing fuel cell outlets at higher positions than drain/purge valves.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano, Mak, Ogawa, and Ushio as applied to claims 14 and 16 above, and further in view of DeWald et al. (US 2015/0192138 A1, hereafter Finnerty).
With regard to claim 15, modified Katano does not teach the details of the blower. However, in the same field of endeavor, DeWald teaches a partition wall (upper wall of duct 13) configured to separate an inlet (15) and outlet (outlet housing 24) from each other [0037, fig. 1A]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the blower with partition (duct 13) of DeWald with the fuel cell of modified Katano for the benefit of required flows in less time and with less turbulence [DeWald 0015, 0039].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights