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 received 3/11/2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20060263651A1 (Fagley) further in view of US20160190611A1 (Grundei)
Regarding claim 1, Fagley teaches a control strategy results in a relative humidity profile that is substantially the same or constant regardless of the operational power level of the fuel cell stack. [abs] and teaches a fuel cell stack including an anode and a cathode [0020], a cathode inlet port, a cathode exhaust port, a cathode inlet air stream , and a cathode exhaust stream [0020-0024; Fagley teaches a plurality of cathode manifolds and the cathode exhaust plumbing, which are the inlets/outlets and streams as claimed], a sensor in the cathode exhaust stream [0023-0025; #56], and a controller [#32] [0026] [fig. 1, 3].
Fagley does not teach a heat exchanger located downstream of the cathode exhaust port in the cathode exhaust stream, and a sensor positioned downstream of the heat exchanger in the cathode exhaust stream.
Grundei teaches a fuel cell system [abs]; and teaches the heat exchanger as claimed [fig. 2; #39; 0044-0046]. 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 Fagley in view of Grunei and incorporate the heat exchanger as claimed as it will enable the fuel cell system to function efficiently and this arrangement allows components that are especially temperature-sensitive or that generate a great deal of heat to be cooled at very low coolant temperatures [0046].
With regards to the claimed sensor positioned on the downstream side, although Grundei does not explicitly recite the sensor as claimed, Fagley teaches multiple sensors [0023]. 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 claimed sensor and position it downstream of the heat exchanger is this is simply considered a rearrangement of parts with no change in how the system would function. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With regards to the claimed limitation, a) for detecting a water content reading in the cathode exhaust stream, this is considered to be functional limitations. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Here, Fagley in view of Grundei teaches the apparatus, i.e. the fuel cell system with an anode, cathode, sensor and a controller. It is the examiners position, the sensor detects a water content reading and the controller determines the operation of the fuel cell stack as claimed, as these are considered functional characteristics of the sensor and the controller.
It is noted, per the instant specification [0060-0063], a relative humidity sensor is a virtual humidity sensor [required by claim 9] that may be controlled automatically, electronically, or in real-time. In some embodiments, the virtual relative humidity sensor may be implemented based on mathematical modelling or computer or mathematical algorithms contained by a processor of any such controller or a computing device. For example, the operating pressure, temperature, fuel cell stack inlet air mass flow, and/or the electrical current generated by the fuel cell stack may be measured. The virtual relative humidity sensor may use the measurements as input. The target values for fuel cell stack operation may be adjusted such that a target relative humidity is achieved. In some embodiments, the use of the virtual relative humidity sensor may be supplemental to a map based approach. Therefore, the Examiner has interpreted the humidity sensor is controlled by a controller, thus the instant claim and the dependent claims will be rejected accordingly, wherein the sensor is a virtual sensor that is controlled by the controller.
Regarding claim 2, Fagley teaches, wherein the sensor is a relative humidity sensor [#56; 0023] and the water content reading is a relative humidity reading comprising a water vapor content reading in the cathode exhaust stream [0022-0027; 0036; The cathode reactant gas flows from compressor 44 through a humidifying device 46, in this case in the form of a water vapor transfer (WVT) device, wherein the cathode reactant gas is humidified. The operation of WVT device 46 can be adjusted to provide differing levels of water vapor transfer between the cathode effluent stream and the cathode reactant stream].
Regarding claim 3, Fagley teaches wherein the controller uses a closed loop optimization of the fuel cell stack based on the relative humidity reading when determining the operation of the fuel cell stack [0028, 0059; recirculates the coolant].
Regarding claim 4, Fagley teaches wherein the cathode inlet air stream is humidified [0022-0023].
Regarding claim 5, Fagley teaches wherein the relative humidity sensor is located at the cathode exhaust port [#56; 0023-0027; fig. 1].
Regarding claim 6, Fagley teaches further comprising a heat exchanger [0028, i.e. radiator #78] located downstream of the cathode exhaust port, wherein the relative humidity sensor is positioned downstream of the heat exchanger [0023; fig. 3].
Regarding claim 7, Fagley teaches further comprising an air compressor [0022, 0025-0026, i.e. #44]. It is noted theclaimed “ wherein the air compressor provides a conditioned air upstream of the relative humidity sensor and dilutes the cathode exhaust stream”, is considered to be functional limitations. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
With regards to the claimed, “the dilution of the cathode exhaust stream is based on a pressure ratio of the aircompressor, or dilution of the cathode exhaust stream introduces a relative humidity offset proportional to a dilution ratio of the conditioned air to the cathode outlet exhaust” Fagley teaches sensors that measure pressure of the cathode gas flowing into and exiting the cathode flow path within fuel cell stack 22. The operation of WVT device 46 can be adjusted to provide differing levels of water vapor transfer between the cathode effluent stream and the cathode reactant stream. Furthermore, bypass valve 48 can be selectively operated to allow a portion or an entirety of the cathode reactant gas supplied by compressor 44 to flow through bypass loop 50 and avoid humidification within WVT device 46. By controlling the operation of WVT device 46 and the amount of cathode reactant that flows through WVT device 46 and that bypasses WVT device 46, a desired relative humidity for the cathode reactant flowing into the cathode flow path of fuel cell stack 22 can be achieved [0024-0030]. It is the Examiner’s position, that Fagley is able to provide conditioned air upstream of the relative humidity sensor and dilutes the cathode exhaust steam as it teaches the sensors and controller that are able calculate the pressure ratio required to provide the conditioned air.
Regarding claim 8, as noted, in claim 7, Fagley teaches all the components needed to provide the conditioned air, thus teaches wherein the conditioned air is introduced upstream of the relative humidity sensor [please refer to rejection of claim 7].
Regarding claim 9, Fagley teaches wherein the relative humidity sensor [sensors #23/86; 0023]. In regards to the claimed, the sensor “is a virtual relative humidity sensor”- It is noted, per the instant specification [0060-0063], a virtual humidity sensor may be controlled automatically, electronically, or in real-time. In some embodiments, the virtual relative humidity senso may be implemented based on mathematical modelling or computer or mathematical algorithms contained by a processor of any such controller or a computing device. For example, the operating pressure, temperature, fuel cell stack inlet air mass flow, and/or the electrical current generated by the fuel cell stack may be measured. The virtual relative humidity sensor may use the measurements as input. The target values for fuel cell stack operation may be adjusted such that a target relative humidity is achieved. In some embodiments, the use of the virtual relative humidity sensor may be supplemental to a map based approach. Therefore, the Examiner has interpreted the sensor is controlled by a controller and the claim is rejected accordingly. Fagley teaches a controller, and teaches a humidity sensor. The controller is capable of providing humidity sensor capabilities virtually as the controller communicates with the various components of fuel cell system 20 to control and coordinate the operation of these various components. Controller 32 is shown as being a single integral controller [0033].
Regarding claim 10, Fagley teaches wherein a bypass air stream is introduced upstream of the relative humidity sensor [#50; bypass loop; 0036]. With regards to the claimed “ to dilute the cathode exhaust stream” is considered to be functional limitations. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Here, Fagley teaches the bypass air stream, therefore, is capable to dilute the cathode exhaust stream as Fig. 3 illustrates the air/O2 from #26 is fed into the loop #50 [0022].
Regarding claim 11, Fagley teaches wherein the relative humidity sensor [#86, 0029] is located on a separate cathode exhaust line [#62; 0028-0029] comprising a heater [#78; 0028-0029] [fig 3]. In regards to the claimed, “wherein the heater increases the temperature of air in the separate cathode exhaust line by a set amount” is considered to be functional limitations. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Here, Fagley teaches the heater as claimed, therefore the heater is capable and an inherent feature to increase the temperature as required by the instant claim, therefore, these limitations are met accordingly.
Regarding claim 12, Fagley teaches various types of sensors as noted in para 0030. The controller #32 communicates with various sensors; Sensors 54, 56 communicate with the respective cathode supply and exhaust plumbing 40, 42. Sensors 54, 56 provide a variety of information regarding the operating conditions of fuel cell stack 22 that are occurring within the cathode flow path, as needed for the particular mechanization and control strategy. For example, sensors 54, 56 can advise as to the temperature, relative humidity, flow rate, and/or the pressures of the cathode gas flowing into and exiting the cathode flow path within fuel cell stack 22 [0024]. It is noted, air is composed of mixture of gases, i.e. nitrogen, oxygen and other gases. Nitrogen is inert , therefore, it can be easily assumed, that the value of nitrogen does not change. Fagley teaches the Oxygen source 26 can be air drawn from the ambient or pure O2 provided from a storage device. Cathode reactant is supplied to the cathode flow path of fuel cell stack 22 via cathode supply plumbing 40 [0022], all of which is controlled by the controller #32 which encompasses the sensors. It is further noted; to determine the water content in the cathode exhaust stream is considered to be functional limitations. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Therefore, in regards to the claimed, Fagley teaches wherein the sensor determines the water content in the cathode exhaust stream based on the measurement of oxygen and nitrogen in the cathode exhaust stream, as Fagley teaches all the components required to determine the water content in the cathode exhaust stream.
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 SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights