Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/987,589

STRUCTURE FOR IMPROVING PERFORMANCE OF FUEL CELL THERMAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Nov 15, 2022
Examiner
CREPEAU, JONATHAN
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kia Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
667 granted / 913 resolved
+8.1% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
949
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 913 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of species (i) in the reply filed on October 21, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species can be searched and examined together without undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the species are mutually exclusive and require different searches; thus a search burden exists. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 6 and 7 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. Claim 6 recites “a high output mode.” The term “high” is considered a relative term as there is no relative basis provided in the specification. Correction is required. Claim 7 recites the limitation “normal times.” It is unclear what constitutes a “normal” time. 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. 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. Claims 1-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-123073 in view of Watanabe et al (US 20180034087). Regarding claim 1, JP ‘073 is directed to a fuel cell and thermal management system thereof. The structure comprises a fuel cell stack (10), a radiator (22) configured to exchange heat with a coolant discharged from the stack, a coolant supply pump (21) configured to supply the coolant to the stack, and an electric heater (30) disposed in parallel with the radiator. The electric heater may be supplied with power from the fuel cell ([0035]). Thus, it is a cathode oxygen depletion (COD) heater as claimed. The system further comprises a heater core (31) disposed in series with the COD heater and configured to heat an interior of a vehicle ([0035]) and a temperature adjustment valve (25) coupled to the radiator, the pump and the core and configured to control a flow of the coolant. Regarding claim 2, the valve is configured to restrict a flow of the coolant to the radiator and allow the coolant to flow to the COD heater and core during a cold start of the system ([0054]). Regarding claim 6, the valve is configured to prevent the coolant discharged from the stack to flow to the core and COD heater and to allow the coolant to flow to the radiator in a high output mode of the system ([0030]-[0033]). Regarding claim 8, the valve is configured to prevent the coolant from flowing to the radiator and to allow the coolant discharge from the stack to flow to the COD heater and core in a heating mode of the system ([0054]). Regarding claim 15, an inlet manifold (shown near 201, Fig. 3) is disposed at an upstream side of the stack, an outlet manifold (shown near 201a, Fig. 3) is disposed at a downstream side of the stack, and the outlet manifold distributes the coolant to the COD heater and the radiator. JP ‘073 does not expressly teach a reservoir disposed between a downstream side of the fuel cell stack and a front end of the pump and configured to adjust a pressure of the coolant, as recited in claim 1. It is further not disclosed that the system has a bypass valve disposed between the upstream side of the stack and the pump, or an ion filter disposed between the bypass valve and the downstream side of the stack as recited in claim 3. Watanabe et al. is directed to a fuel cell system and a method of controlling. The system comprises a cooling loop (109) comprising, among other elements, an expansion tank (112) immediately upstream of a coolant pump (104), the fuel cell stack inlet (48a) downstream of the pump, and a branch junction between the pump and the fuel cell inlet wherein an ion filter (116) is provided in a branch pipe (115) which bypasses the fuel cell and connects to the downstream side of the stack (Fig. 1). A reserve tank (114) is connected to the expansion tank. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would have been motivated to use the ion filter, branch pipe, expansion tank and reserve tank of Watanabe in the system of JP ‘073. Regarding the ion filter, it is disclosed that the ion exchanger prevents liquid junction of the stack 12 by removing ions contained in the coolant. Further, with respect to the tanks 112 and 114, it is disclosed that when necessary, coolant can be supplied to tank 114 from tank 112 and vice verse ([0043]) and that pressure can be released outside the tank 112 via a pressure release valve ([0068]). Therefore, the artisan would have used these elements in the system of JP ‘073. Accordingly, claim 1 is rendered obvious including the limitation that the reservoir is “configured to adjust a pressure of the coolant.” Regarding the recitation of a bypass valve, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a valve in the location where the branch junction is located in Watanabe to precisely control flow to the fuel cell and the ion exchanger. As such, this limitation in claim 3 is also rendered obvious. Regarding claims 4 and 5, such a bypass valve would be fully capable of performing the claimed functions and thus the limitations are rendered obvious. Regarding claim 7, the system of modified JP ‘073 would be capable of performing the claimed function (“a part of the coolant discharged from the fuel cell stack flows to the reservoir at normal times”). Regarding claim 15, the outlet manifold of the fuel cell also would distribute coolant to the reservoir in the system of modified JP ‘073. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: Claim 9 recites that the system further comprises a controller that is configured to calculate available heating power in a heating mode based on a target temperature of the interior of the vehicle inputted by a user and a temperature measured by temperature sensors respectively disposed at upstream and downstream sides of the fuel cell stack. JP ‘073, applied above, and Koyama (US 20140342260) are considered the closest prior art. Koyama teaches a fuel cell vehicle air conditioning system comprising a heat creation unit and a heating power generation amount calculation unit which calculates a required heating amount based on variables which can include a target temperature of the cabin interior (claims 1 and 7 of the reference). The method also calculates of the amount of heat stored in the fuel cell using the fuel cell temperature as measured at sensor 56 in the coolant passage downstream of the fuel cell ([0058]). However, the reference does not teach or fairly suggest using an upstream fuel cell temperature in the method in addition to the downstream temperature as claimed. The upstream temperature would be substantially different than downstream temperature (the coolant having just exchanged heat with radiator 55 or core 61) and is not representative of fuel cell temperature. As such, claim 9 contains allowable subject matter. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Jonathan Crepeau/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 January 22, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 15, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603315
HYDROGEN PUMPING PROTON EXCHANGE MEMBRANE ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL WITH CARBON MONOXIDE TOLERANT ANODE AND METHOD OF MAKING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603300
PULSED ELECTROCHEMICAL DEPOSITION OF ORDERED INTERMETALLIC CARBON COMPOSITES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603345
BATTERY PACK AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592397
TUBULAR POLYMER ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE FUEL CELL STACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586803
FUEL CELL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+18.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 913 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month