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 5/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are presented on pages 5-7 that the prior art would not teach and the office action did not address the claimed limitation of fluid flowing through an expansion machine in a first conduction mode and a second conduction mode. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that the claims are drawn to a product and the prior art cited in the office action teaches structures that would be capable of performing the claimed functions. Kelly is relied upon for teaching an expansion machine in a conduction path (fluid would flow through) [0022-0024, fig. 1] and Knoop is relied upon for teaching a valve configuration that allows for selecting fuel flow to a tank or directly to a fuel cell (which would create first and second conduction modes) [0031-0032]. Since the expansion engine of Kelly is located upstream of both the storage tank (22) and electrolyzer (12) [0022-0024, fig. 1] fuel would be capable of flowing through the expansion engine in the first mode or second mode.
The arguments are presented on pages 7-8 that the prior art would not teach a valve arrangement that selects a conduction pathway in a first mode in which fluid is guided to the tank or a second mode in which the fluid is guided to the fuel cell from the tank. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Ewan teaches a valve located adjacent to a tank to allow for the use of generated hydrogen (first mode) or stored hydrogen (second mode) [Ewan col. 7 lines 25-38] and would enable the claimed functions when used with the system of modified Kelly.
The arguments are presented on pages 8-9 that the valve of Ewan would not be capable of modifying Kelly or Knoop to enable fluid flow through an expansion engine in two different modes. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Knoop is a secondary reference and would not be modified by the teachings of Ewan. With regard to modifying Kelly as shown in the modified figure 1 of Kelly below, a selecting valve (taught by Knoop [0031-0032]) adjacent to the storage tank (taught by Ewan [col. 7 lines 25-38]) would allow for flow through an expansion engine in first and second modes by flow through the storage tank or bypassing the storage tank.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1-5, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley et al. (US 2010/0025232 A1, hereafter Kelley) in view of Knoop et al. (DE 10008823A1, hereafter Knoop), and further in view of Ewan et al (US 5,346,778, hereafter Ewan).
With regard to claim 1, Kelley teaches an energy recovery assembly comprising:
an electrolyzer configured to provide fuel and an oxidant (electrolyzer 12) [0016];
a fuel cell (fuel cell 54) configured to convert the fuel and the oxidant to electrical energy [0026];
a tank configured to store the fuel or the oxidant (storage tank 22 or 24) [0019, 0024];
a conduction pathway connecting the tank to the electrolyzer and the fuel cell (as seen in fig. 1) [0022-0024, fig 1];
an expansion machine (expansion engine 32) disposed in the conduction pathway and configure to expand a fluid flowing through the expansion machine and to obtain mechanical energy [0022-0024]; and
wherein the fuel flows through the expansion machine (expansion engine 32) [0022-0024, fig. 1].
Kelley does not teach a valve arrangement configured to put the conduction pathway in a first conduction mode in which the fuel or the oxidant is guided to the tank or in a second conduction mode in which the fuel cell or the oxidant is guided to the fuel cell from the tank. However, in the same field of endeavor, Knoop teaches a valve configuration that allows for selecting fuel flow to a tank or directly to a fuel cell [0031-0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the valve arrangement of Knoop with the energy recovery assembly of Kelly for the benefit of allowing for rapid reaction to peak loads or low emission operation of the fuel cell [Knoop 0035].
Kelly does not explicitly teach the location of the valve arrangement. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ewan teaches a valve (57) located adjacent to a hydrogen tank (storage bottle 4) [col. 6 lines 1-6, col. 7 lines 25-38, fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the valve location adjacent to a hydrogen storage tank of Ewan with the assembly of modified Kelly for the benefit of regulating output from the tank to allow a fuel cell to use stored hydrogen or generated hydrogen [Ewan col. 7 lines 25-38]. When used with the assembly of Kelly the valve would be located between the expansion machine and tank since it is taught by Ewan to be adjacent to the tank.
With regard to claims 2 and 4, Kelley does not teach the claimed valve arrangement. However, in the same field of endeavor, Knoop teaches a multiway valve (capable of selecting between two paths) configuration that allows for selecting fuel flow from a hydrogen source to a tank or directly to a fuel cell and teaches the hydrogen source, tank (fuel store 2) and expansion device (5) are connected [0031-0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the valve arrangement of Knoop with the energy recovery assembly of Kelly for the benefit of allowing for rapid reaction to peak loads or low emission operation of the fuel cell [Knoop 0035]. When used with the energy recovery assembly of Kelly the valve arrangement of Knoop would be connected to the hydrogen source (electrolyzer 12) of Kelly.
With regard to claim 3, Kelley does not explicitly teach a shutoff valve in an outlet conduit of the electrolyzer. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ewan teaches an electrolyzer with a shutoff valve (flow control valves 98, 99, which would be capable of altering a flow cross section) located in electrolyzer outlets [col. 7 lines 50-59]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the valves of Ewan with the electrolyzer of modified Kelley for the benefit of maintaining high pressure in the electrolyzer during time it is not powered [Ewan col. 7 lines 50-59].
With regard to claim 5, Kelly does not teach the claimed valve arrangement. However, in the same field of endeavor, Knoop teaches a multiway valve (capable of selecting between two paths) configuration that allows for selecting fuel flow from a hydrogen source to a tank or directly to a fuel cell and teaches the tank (fuel store 2) and outlet of the expansion device (5) are connected [0031-0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the valve arrangement of Knoop with the energy recovery assembly of Kelly for the benefit of allowing for rapid reaction to peak loads or low emission operation of the fuel cell [Knoop 0035]. Modified Kelly would not explicitly teach multiple multiway valves, however this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would only require a duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
With regard to claim 9, Kelly teaches the expansion machine (expansion engine) is configured to convert the mechanical energy to electrical energy (via electrical generator) [0022].
With regard to claim 10, Kelly teaches a generator coupled to the expansion machine (expansion engine) [0022].
With regard to claim 11, Kelly teaches a high pressure electrolyzer that can produce hydrogen and oxygen at up to 10,000 psi (equivalent to a range of 0 to 689 bar) [0017] and would therefore be capable of operating at the claimed pressures.
With regard to claim 12, Kelley teaches a water tank [0018] but does not explicitly teach it is capable of collecting and storing water formed in the fuel cell. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ewan teaches collecting byproduct water from the fuel cell in a tank [col. 4 lines 5-21]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the water tank connected to a fuel cell of Ewan with the energy recovery assembly of modified Kelley for the benefit of being able to use byproduct water from the fuel cell for electrolysis or cooling [Ewan col. 4 lines 5-21].
With regard to claim 13, Kelly teaches a vehicle comprising the energy recovery assembly [0008].
Claim(s) 6-8 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley, Knoop, and Ewan as applied to claims 1-5, and 9-13 above, and further in view of Endoh et al (US 2004/0031384 A1, hereafter Endoh).
With regard to claims 6-8 and 14-15, Kelley teaches an expansion machine (expansion engine) [0022-0024] but does not teach the claimed details of the expansion machine. However, in the same field of endeavor, Endoh teaches an expansion machine that is a rotary flow machine (claim 6) [0010, 0035, 0077] with a tooth (vanes in vane piston units, claim 7) arrangement [0059, fig. 4] and is a rotary piston expansion machine (reciprocal rotating pistons, claim 14) [0009]. Endoh further teaches the tooth arrangement (vane piston units) comprise a rotatable first section (cylinder member 39) and a second section with an expansion space between (gaps between inner wall of cylinder 39 and piston 41 as seen in fig. 2 and fig. 4, claim 8) [0040-0042, fig. 2, fig. 4]. Endoh further teaches that the rotary flow machine comprises seven teeth (incudes a seventh vane piston unit, claim 15) [0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the rotary flow machine of Endoh as the expansion machine of Kelley for the benefit of an expansion machine with enhanced durability [Endoh 0009, 0083].
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 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