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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency (e.g. with Claim 3), “the recess is a non-circular arc” should be written as “the recess is in a non-circular arc shape.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “allowing water to accumulated in the recess” should be written as “allowing water to accumulate in the recess.” 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.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 the limitation "the flow of water." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“the water flow” is suggested).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the pressure at the water inlet pipe.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a pressure at the water inlet pipe” is suggested).
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the pressure of the water vapor." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a pressure of the water vapor” is suggested).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the temperature of the water vapor.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a temperature of the water vapor” is suggested).
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "the flow." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a flow” is suggested).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an incoming high-temperature gas.” However, Claim 8 also makes reference to “a” high-temperature gas. Therefore, Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if said “an” incoming high-temperature gas is said “a” high-temperature gas, or a separate and distinct gas.
The term “high-temperature” in each instance in Claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what explicit temperature(s) is/are considered “high” temperature not “high” temperature.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation (emphasis added) "a burner burns to generate high temperature hot and..." The explicit meaning of this phrase is unclear. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that said phrase is in reference to “high temperature hot air.”
The term “high-temperature” in each instance in Claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 10 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what explicit temperature(s) is/are considered “high” temperature not “high” temperature.
The term “hot” in each instance in Claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 10 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what explicit temperature(s) is/are considered “hot” and not “hot.”
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitation "the flow." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a flow” is suggested).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the temperature of the water vapor.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a temperature of the water vapor” is suggested).
The term “high temperature” in Claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 12 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what explicit temperature(s) is/are considered “high” temperature not “high” temperature.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "the flow." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a flow” is suggested).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the pressure of the water vapor.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a pressure of the water vapor” is suggested).
The term “high temperature” in Claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 13 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what explicit temperature(s) is/are considered “high” temperature not “high” temperature.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation "the pressure drop." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a pressure drop” is suggested).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the water inlet.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a water inlet” is suggested).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the water outlet.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a water outlet” is suggested).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakabayashi (JP 2012201583, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Wakabayashi teaches a water evaporator (2) (“water vapor generator”) for a solid oxide fuel cell power generation device (“solid oxide fuel cell system”) ([0021]-[0022]). As illustrated in Figures 1-3, Wakabayashi teaches that the water evaporator comprises a container (C1) (“tank body”), a water supply pipe (6) (“water inlet pipe”) for introducing water into the container, and a plate structure (2a) (“heat exchanger”) arranged, at least in part, inside the tank body (e.g. the inside surface of the plate structure, at least, is inside the tank body), wherein combustion heat is directly transferred to the plate structure for exchange purposes ([0028]), [0031]). Wakabayashi teaches that a water flow can enter the tank body through the water supply pipe to exchange heat with the plate structure (directly or indirectly) in order to form steam (“a water flow can enter the tank body through the water inlet pipe to exchange heat with the heat exchanger so as to form water vapor,” wherein it is noted that while Wakabayashi explicitly teaches the claimed capability/functionality, the aforementioned limitation merely requires that that the claimed structure “can” perform/carry out the claimed capability/functionality, but not necessarily that the capability/functionality “is” performed/carried out) ([0035]-[0036]). As illustrated in Figures 1-3, Wakabayashi teaches that the evaporator is characterized in that a “top portion” (i.e. the upper side/surface of the plate structure) is provided with an internal structure (2b) comprising a “recess” (i.e. the recessed area generally indicated by “P” in Figures 2-3) (“the water vapor generator is characterized in that a top portion of the heat exchanger is provided with a recess”) ([0031]-[0033]). Wakabayashi teaches that the internal structure is specifically formed such that a water flow from the water supply pipe flows into the recess, accumulates in the recess, and, at least in part, overflows therefrom to exchange heat with the plate structure (“a water flow from the water inlet pipe can flow into the recess, be accumulated in the recess, and then overflow therefrom to exchange heat with the heat exchanger,” wherein it is noted that while Wakabayashi explicitly teaches the claimed capability/functionality, the aforementioned limitation merely requires that that the claimed structure “can” perform/carry out the claimed capability/functionality, but not necessarily that the capability/functionality “is” performed/carried out ) ([0035]-[0036]).
Regarding Claim 2, Wakabayashi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 2-3, the recess extends downwardly from a peripheral edge of the top portion of the plate structure toward a middle portion thereof.
Regarding Claim 8, Wakabayashi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 1-3, Wakabayashi teaches that the evaporator is provided with a fuel gas supply pipe (7) (“inlet”) which is, at least in part and to at least some degree, in thermal communication with the plate structure, wherein said pipe introduces high temperature fuel gas into the tank body, wherein said pipe is provided with a desulfurizer (“regulating valve”) for removing sulfur compounds (which therefore regulates the flow of the incoming high temperature fuel gas into the tank body) ([0030]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wakabayashi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Regarding the method in which the water evaporator is operated, (“a method of operating a water vapor generator”), Wakabayashi teaches that a water flow from the water supply pipe is introduced into the recess thereby allowing water to both accumulate in the recess and overflow therefrom to exchange heat with the plate structure ([0031]-[0036]).
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 3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (JP 2012201583, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Nagai et al. (JP S62270402, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 3, Wakabayashi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Wakabayashi does not explicitly teach that the recess is in an arc shape.
However, Nagai teaches a fuel cell reformer comprising a water evaporator therein ([0001]). As illustrated in the Figure, the evaporator comprises a recess (1) in which water accumulates, wherein the accumulated water is vaporized into steam as a result of thermal heat exchange ([0001]). As illustrated in the Figure, the recess is in a non-circular arc shape comprising an arc of a parabola or ellipse. Nagai teaches that said shape of the recess helps promotes the flow and accumulation of water towards a middle region of the recess which extends toward the vicinity of a heat source (i.e. flame 2a) ([0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the recess of Wakabayashi in a non-circular arc shape comprising an arc of a parabola or ellipse (“the recess is in an arc shape”), as taught by Nagai, given not only because such a modification would help promote the flow and accumulation of water towards a middle region of the recess which extends towards the plate structure, but also because such a modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice insofar as it would only have involved a mere change of shape of the existing recess of Wakabayashi. A change of shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)).
Regarding Claim 9, Wakabayashi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 3), the recess is in a non-circular arc shape comprising an arc of a parabola or ellipse.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (JP 2012201583, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Baxter et al. (US 2019/0093967).
Regarding Claim 4, Wakabayashi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Wakabayashi does not explicitly teach that an end of the water supply pipe is provided with a distributed dripper to cause the water to flow evenly into the recess, wherein the distributed dripper is structed in the claimed manner.
However, Baxter teaches a droplet generating device (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 4 (and the annotated Figure below), Baxter teaches that the device comprises a distributor, wherein the distributor comprises a plurality of nozzles (408) connected in parallel and distributed centrosymmetrically at equal intervals ([0030]). Baxter teaches that the plurality of nozzles provide for the production of droplets of fluid ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, at an end of the water supply pipe of Wakabayashi, provide a distributor (“distributed dripper”), as taught by Baxter, to cause the water to flow evenly into the recess wherein the distributor comprises a plurality of nozzles (“plurality of drippers”) connected in parallel and distributed centrosymmetrically at equal intervals, as taught by Baxter, given that such a modification would allow for the water to be supplied to the recess in the form of droplets.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (JP 2012201583, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Takuwa et al. (JP 2018106954, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 5, Wakabayashi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 1-3, the plate structure of Wakabayashi is a “plate heat exchanger” insofar as it is structured in the form of a plate.
Wakabayashi does not explicitly that a surface of the plate structure is provided with fins.
However, Takuwa teaches a solid oxide fuel cell system ([0001]). As illustrated in Figure 6, Takuwa teaches that the system comprises a water vaporization unit comprising a recess in which water accumulates, wherein the accumulated water is vaporized into steam as a result of thermal heat exchange ([0047]). As illustrated in Figure 6, a heat exchange surface comprising a plurality of heat transfer fins (136), wherein the heat transfer enhance heat transfer characteristics thereby improving the efficiency of water vaporization ([0047]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would provide a surface of the plate structure of Wakabayashi with a plurality of heat transfer fins (“fins”), as taught by Takuwa, given that the provision such fins would enhance heat transfer characteristics to thereby improve the efficiency of steam generation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (JP 2012201583, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Tamura et al. (US 2012/0034537).
Regarding Claim 6, Wakabayashi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Wakabayashi does not explicitly teach that the water supply pipe is provided with a regulating valve configured to regulate the flow of water into the container.
However, Tamura teaches a fuel cell system (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1, Tamura teaches that the system comprises a water evaporator (32b) comprising a water supply passage (22), wherein a water supply valve (26) is provided in the supply passage to both open and block the supply passage ([0052], [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would further provide the water supply pipe of Wakabayashi with a water supply valve (“regulating valve”), as taught by Tamura, given that such a valve would allow for both opening and closing of the water supply pipe (“configured to regulate the flow of water from the water inlet pipe”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 (and rewritten to overcome the aforementioned rejection(s) of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 requires, at least, a water vapor outlet as claimed, and at least one of a pressure sensor and temperature sensor as claimed.
While Wakabayashi’s tank body arguably comprises a “water vapor outlet” (i.e. partition material (33) in Figure 2 which is an outlet for steam from the tank body), Wakabayashi neither teaches nor suggests a pressure sensor and/or temperature sensor provided at said outlet, let alone a pressure sensor which is specifically configured to detect a pressure of steam discharged from said outlet and/or a temperature sensor which is specifically configured to detect a temperature of steam discharged from said outlet.
Claim 10 is 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 (and rewritten to overcome the aforementioned rejection(s) of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 requires, at least, a solid oxide fuel cell system comprising a burner as claimed, the water vapor generator of Claim 1, an inlet as claimed, and an outlet as claimed, wherein high temperature hot air enters the heat exchanger via the inlet and exits via the outlet.
The “heat exchanger” of Wakabayashi is the plate structure (2b). However, because said plate structure is structured in a fundamentally different manner than the claimed heat exchanger (i.e. it does not conduct a heat conducting fluid therethrough, let alone high temperature hot air as claimed), Wakabayashi neither teaches nor suggests the instantly claimed solid oxide fuel cell system.
Claim 12 is 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 (and rewritten to overcome the aforementioned rejection(s) of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 requires, at least, measuring the temperature of the water vapor at the outlet, and preventing the flow of high temperature gas into the heat exchanger when the measured temperature exceeds a predetermined level.
The “heat exchanger” of Wakabayashi is the plate structure (2b). However, because said plate structure is structured in a fundamentally different manner than the claimed heat exchanger (i.e. it does not conduct a heat conducting fluid therethrough, let alone high temperature gas as claimed), Wakabayashi neither teaches nor suggests the instantly claimed method.
Claim 13 is 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 (and rewritten to overcome the aforementioned rejection(s) of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 13 requires, at least, measuring the pressure of the water vapor at the outlet, and preventing the flow water and of high temperature gas into the heat exchanger when the measured pressure exceeds a predetermined level.
The “heat exchanger” of Wakabayashi is the plate structure (2b). However, because said plate structure is structured in a fundamentally different manner than the claimed heat exchanger (i.e. it does not conduct a heat conducting fluid or water therethrough, let alone high temperature gas and water as claimed), Wakabayashi neither teaches nor suggests the instantly claimed method.
Claim 14 is 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 (and rewritten to overcome the aforementioned rejection(s) of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14 requires, measuring the pressure drop between the water inlet and the water outlet, and controlling the water inlet to maintain the pressure drop within a predetermined range.
Wakabayashi neither teaches nor suggests any measurement of a pressure drop between the water supply pipe and a water outlet (e.g. partition material (33) in Figure 2 which is an outlet for steam from the tank body), let alone controlling the water inlet to maintain said pressure drop within a predetermined range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728