DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. In response to the amendment received on 12/16/2025:
Claims 1-6 and 8-18 are pending in the current application. Claim 1-2, 8, and 17 have been amended and Claim 7 is cancelled.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the movable elements 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tixier EP1469543 in view of Kanie JP2009-158203.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Tixier discloses a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack with a cathode 1 to which air can be fed as cathode gas via a cathode gas path, wherein an air source 9 is integrated into the cathode gas path 24, wherein the cathode gas path branches downstream of the air source 9 into a main path 22 that can be connected to an inlet 15 of the fuel cell stack and into a secondary path 21 that can be connected to an outlet 16 of the fuel cell stack, wherein the main path (24 going into 22) and the secondary path (24 going into 21) can each be shut off individually with the aid of a shutoff device 12 since the flow direction is reversed and air does not flow from 24 into 22, and, for example, the main path or the secondary path can be connected to main path 23 of cathode exhaust path 23 via outlet 19 of the shut off device 12 (paras 0025, 0030, Figs. 3A-3B, meeting Claim 2) (see entire disclosure and especially e.g. Figs 1-3 and paras 0008-0030). Tixier does not specifically disclose what type of air source 9 is used, and, specifically, does not disclose the presence and integration of an air compressor in the cathode gas path or that the branching of the cathode gas path is downstream of the air compressor or wherein the shut off device comprises at least two movable shut off elements by which the inlet of the fuel cells tack and the outlet of the fuel cell stack can be shut off to enable a bypass operation in which air flows from the cathode gas path to a cathode exhaust path, bypassing the fuel cell stack.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fuel cell system cathode (air) supply path design where fuel cell humidification is addressed, Kanie discloses a cathode gas supply source to supply air in a fuel cell system 1 where the source comprises an air compressor 14 integrated into a cathode gas path (air supply flow path) 11 and discloses wherein the cathode gas path includes at least two movable shut off elements (inlet shutoff valve and outlet shutoff valve; valves are necessarily movable in order to open and close) 18/19 by which the inlet and the outlet of the fuel cell stack 2 can be shut off to enable a bypass operation in which air flows from the cathode gas path 11 to a cathode exhaust path 12 via oxidizing gas bypass flow path 8 bypassing the fuel cell stack in order to carry out a start-up method that is quick and prevents false detection of hydrogen leaks and prevents the fuel cell from reaching an open circuit voltage state during the start-up inspection (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0009-0015, 0018, 0031, 0035-0037, 0041-0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to integrate a compressor as the air source into the cathode gas path of the fuel cell system of Tixier such that it is positioned upstream of where the cathode gas path branches because Kanie teaches that that a compressor is useful for delivering cathode supply gas to a fuel cell using a branching mechanism for a bypass system including at least two movable shut off elements (inlet shutoff valve and outlet shutoff valve; valves are necessarily movable in order to open and close) 18/19 by which the inlet and the outlet of the fuel cell stack 2 can be shut off to enable a bypass operation in which air flows from the cathode gas path 11 to a cathode exhaust path 12 via oxidizing gas bypass flow path 8 bypassing the fuel cell stack in order to carry out a start-up method that is quick and prevents false detection of hydrogen leaks and prevents the fuel cell from reaching an open circuit voltage state during the start-up inspection. Tixier modified by Kanie does not specifically recite wherein the shut off device comprises the at least two movable shut off elements. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the system of Tixier and Kanie such that the shut off device comprises the at least two movable shut off elements in order to form a coordinated structure/device that can control all of the oxidant delivery needs in order to save space and simplify the design since the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 3, Tixier modified by Kanie does not specifically disclose a secondary path of the cathode exhaust path such that the main path of the cathode gas path can be connected to a secondary path of the cathode exhaust path while the secondary path of the cathode gas path can be connected to main path 23 of cathode exhaust path 23. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a secondary path of the cathode exhaust path to allow for further options for exhaust flow, e.g. to direct portions of the cathode exhaust to a different treatment than the option provided with 10 (para 0022). The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Tixier discloses wherein the shutoff device 12 has movable shutoff elements (flaps) 14 for shutting off the main path (24 going into 22) and the secondary path (24 going into 21) of the cathode gas path wherein the two shut off elements 14 (each half of 14 is a flap shut off element) are arranged rotatably around a common axis of rotation 40 (para 0030, Fig. 4, meeting Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Trixier discloses wherein an angular position of the shut off elements 10 is offset by a same angular position (a quarter turn) since that is the amount of rotation needed to move from position P1 to position P2 (see all Figs and e.g. para 0031-0032). Tixier modified by Kanie does not specifically recite where the shut of elements have freewheels. However, the use of freewheels instead of the mechanism of Trixier is considered a simple change of shape and the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Tixier modified by Kanie does not specifically recite wherein the at least two shut off elements are arranged rotatably about a common axis of rotation, particularly in the same angular position. However, it would have been obvious to a person it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the valves to design the further shutoff elements of Tixier modified by Kanie in a similar manner as those already used by Tixier (e.g. via a rotatable cross distributor arranged on an common axis of rotation) since this manner of changing flow paths is known to be effective and the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Since Trixier discloses wherein an angular position of the shut off elements 10 is offset by an angle of 90° (a quarter turn) since that is the amount of rotation needed to move from position P1 to position P2 (see all Figs and e.g. para 0031-0032), it would have been obvious to design said further shutoff elements in the same way since the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claims 10 and 12-13, and 18, as explained in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety, Tixier modified by Kanie discloses a method of operating a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack with a cathode to which, in normal operation, air is compressed with an air compressor fed via a cathode gas path 24 including main and secondary cathode gas paths 21/22, wherein a flow direction through the fuel cell stack of the air is temporarily reversed for membrane moistening (para 0027) using a shut off device 12 with movable shut off elements such as flaps (both halves of 14) arranged rotatably about at least one axis of rotation (meeting Claims 12-13, 18) (see all Figs, paras 0026-0027).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Tixier discloses wherein in order to reverse the flow direction with a shut off device 12, a main path (24 going into 22, P1) connected to an inlet 15 of the fuel cell stack is shut off and a secondary path of the cathode gas path (24 going into 21, P2) connected to an outlet 16 of the fuel cell stack is opened (see Figs 1-3B), paras 0022-0026).
Regarding Claim 14, Figs 2-3C show that the moveable elements of Tixier are arranged in the main and secondary cathode gas paths, but Tixier modified by Kanie does not specifically disclose wherein further movable shut off elements are arranged in the main path and in the secondary path of the cathode exhaust gas path. However, since it is obvious over Tixier modified by Kanie to also include main and secondary cathode exhaust paths, which are connected to secondary and main gas paths, respectively, as explained in the rejection of Claim 3, above, and Kortnikov teaches the value in including valves (movable shutoff elements) to control the operations of the fuel cell (such as start-up testing), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to including further movable shutoff elements in the main and secondary paths of the cathode exhaust path of Tixier modified by Kanie teaches the value in including movable shutoff elements in outlet (exhaust) paths to control the fuel cell operations such as start-up testing. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Trixier discloses wherein an angular position of the shut off elements 10 is offset by an angle of 90° (a quarter turn) since that is the amount of rotation needed to move from position P1 to position P2 (see all Figs and e.g. para 0031-0032).
7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tixier EP1469543 in view of Kanie JP2009-158203, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Fellows US PG Publication 2013/0323616.
Regarding Claim 9, Tixier modified by Kanie discloses the claimed fuel cell system as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Tixier modified by Kanie discloses that the compressor device comprises a compressor 33 as well as a turbine 36 both mounted on a shared shaft (see Figs and para 0038) and while the skilled artisan would presume that the turbine compressor of Tixier and Kanie would be formed as structures reasonably considered to be wheels in order to rotate around a shared shaft, the prior art does not specifically disclose wherein the air compressor has at least one compressor wheel which is arranged on a common shaft with a turbine wheel arranged in the cathode gas path. However, Fellows discloses wherein a fuel cell system uses a turbine-powered air compressor connected to e.g. the exhaust stream of the cathode and that the compressor comprises a compressor wheel and the turbine comprises a turbine wheel, both being coupled to a shared shaft (see e.g para 0037; Fig 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the turbine-driven compressor of Tixier modified by Kanie such that the air compressor has at least one compressor wheel which is arranged on a common shaft with a turbine wheel arranged in the cathode gas path because Fellows teaches that this is a known structure of a turbine-driven air compressor found in a cathode gas stream and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejection above.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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 Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729