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 Amendment
This is a final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 6/23/2026. Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-9 are currently amended. Claims 13-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-25 are newly added. Claims 1-12 and 21-25 are pending in this action of which claims 9-12 are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the newly applied ground of rejection utilizing Meissner as the new primary reference teaching the argued subject matter.
Regarding Applicant’s request for rejoinder of method claims 9-12, said request is acknowledged but respectfully denied pursuant to MPEP 821.04 which requires that the corresponding product claims must be found allowable. Because independent claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 USC 102, method claims 9-12 cannot be rejoined and remain withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(11) as being anticipated by Meissner (US20030190513A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Meissner discloses a humidification system (fuel cell system) [pars. 0001,0032] comprising:
a heat exchanger (exhaust condenser 32) fluidically coupled to a cathode outlet of a fuel cell stack to receive exhaust air stream therefrom and to cool the received exhaust air stream (i.e., coolant is circulated through the exhaust condenser to provide condensation of water in the cathode exhaust, and thus, the exhaust condenser necessarily functions as a heat exchanger) [pars. 0037-38; Fig. 1];
a coolant supply coupled to the heat exchanger to direct coolant thereto for heat exchange with the received exhaust air stream (coolant circulated through the exhaust condenser to provide condensation of water in the cathode exhaust, and thus, the exhaust condenser necessarily functions as a heat exchanger) [pars. 0037-38; Fig. 1];
a water trapping device (water separator 34) fluidically coupled to the heat exchanger and configured to trap water droplets (liquid water) extracted from the exhaust air stream by the heat exchanger to generate a dry exhaust air stream (i.e., the resulting air passed through line 50 is necessarily dried) [pars. 0037,0043,0045,0048; Fig. 1]; and
an injector (nozzle 82) fluidically coupled to the water trapping device and configured to receive at least a portion of the water droplets trapped by the water trapping device (i.e., via line 35), the injector fluidically coupled upstream from a cathode inlet of the fuel cell stack and configured to humidify a stream of air using the received portion of the water droplets prior to the stream of air entering the cathode inlet (i.e., nozzle 82, where line 35 terminates in air contact humidifier 40, which includes an injecting device that provides a very fine spray of water/aqueous material in reactant gas to humidify incoming air prior to entering the cathode) [pars. 0037,0048; Figs. 1-2].
Regarding Claim 2, Meissner discloses the system further comprising a turbine 52 fluidically coupled to receive the dry exhaust air stream output by the water trapping device [par. 0043; Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 21, Meissner discloses wherein the heat exchanger is devoid of a water permeable membrane (i.e., since Meissner discloses a liquid coolant to remove heat and extract, an ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the condenser 32 is a conventional surface condenser, or more specifically, a liquid cooled or indirect-contact shell-and-tube heat exchanger, as opposed to one including a water permeable membrane) [pars. 0037-38; Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 25, Meissner discloses wherein the coolant supply is part of a coolant recirculation loop [par. 0036; Fig. 1].
Claim(s) 3-7 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanai (US20010021468A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Meissner fails to teach the system further comprising a fluid reservoir fluidically coupled between the water trapping device and the injector, wherein the fluid reservoir is configured to receive and store the water droplets from the water trapping device, and wherein the fluid reservoir is configured to selectively provide at least the portion of the water droplets to the injector. However, Kanai, from the same field of endeavor, teaches that water collected from a water trapping device (exhaust separator 3,3a) configured to trap water droplets extracted from the exhaust air stream of a fuel cell stack can be directed to a fluid reservoir (water storage tank 4,4a) to store the liquid water and selectively supply to an injector 17 via a pump 7 and control valves [Kanai – pars. 0059-60,0069-74; Figs. 1,21]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the system of Meissner to have further comprised a fluid reservoir fluidically coupled between the water trapping device and the injector, wherein the fluid reservoir is configured to receive and store the water droplets from the water trapping device, and wherein the fluid reservoir is configured to selectively provide at least the portion of the water droplets to the injector to intermittently inject water on demand of the fuel cell stack.
Regarding Claim 4, Kani discloses a pump (pump 7) fluidically coupled in line with the fluid reservior 4,4a and return port via circulation pipe 22 and valve 20/20a to recirculate stored water back into the reservoir system to prevent freezing [Kanai – pars. 0060-61,0074,0151; Figs. 1,3,14,21]. To the extend that Kani illustrates pump 7 located physically within the reservoir 4,4a in Fig. 3, Kanai explicitly teaches that pumps (e.g., pump 126i) can be external and separately attached to the reservoir (auxiliary water tank 126d) in order to pump water back into the reservoir Kanai – par. 0240; Fig. 26]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the system of Meissner to comprise a pump separate from the fluid reservoir in a water recirculation pipe 22 and fluidically coupled between an outlet port of the fluid reservoir and a return port of the fluid reservoir, wherein the pump is configured to recirculate the water droplets output at the outlet port of the fluid reservoir toward the return port of the fluid reservoir as a routine engineering design choice for servicing water supply based on thermal considerations [Kanai – pars. 0151,0239].
Regarding Claim 5, modified Meissner discloses a valve (auxiliary valve 20a,20 and/or three way valve 21a,21) coupled between an outlet of the pump and the return port of the fluid reservoir, wherein the valve is configured to operate in a first position to permit flow of water output by the pump toward the return port and in a second position to prevent the flow of water toward the return port [Kanai – pars. 0060-61,0074,0087,0142; Fig. 1,21].
Regarding Claims 6-7, modified Meissner discloses the system further comprises an injection branch (i.e., portion of auxiliary humidification pipe 13 supplying water towards injector 17) fluidically coupled between the outlet of the pump and the valve, wherein the injector is coupled to the injection branch to receive at least the portion of water droplets via the injection branch, wherein the injector is configured to receive at least the portion of water droplets by the injection branch in response to the valve being in the second position [Kanai – par. 0060; Figs. 21,1].
Regarding Claim 24, Meissner fails to disclose wherein the injector is a first injector, and wherein the humidification system further includes a second injector downstream of the heat exchanger and upstream of the water trapping device. However, Kanai, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a humidification system in which an auxiliary liquid injector 17 is utilized to inject collected water into the cathode exhaust stream 12 upstream of the water collecting/separating apparatus [Kanai – pars. 0160-163; Fig. 16]. Kanai further teaches providing multiple injectors along both intake and exhaust streams, stating that liquid water “may be injected downstream on the cathode side gas passage 101a and upstream from the compressor 124, or both immediate downstream and upstream on the cathode side gas passage 101a [Kanai – par. 0236].Kanai further more teaches that a vapor/liquid separator 3 can be positioned along exhaust pipe 12 downstream of water-injection/collecting equipment to recover water content from the exhaust stream [Kanani – pars. 0059,0196-197; Figs. 1,16,22]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the system of Meissner wherein the injector is a first injector, and wherein the humidification system further includes a second injector downstream of the heat exchanger and upstream of the water trapping device in order to introduce a second water injector in the exhaust conduit between cooling and separation stages in order to condition the exhaust gas stream and supply additional liquid droplets to enhance water separation efficiency.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner and Kanai, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hausmann (US20240014418A1 – foreign priority day 12/18/2020).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Meissner fails to disclose the system further comprising a filter fluidically coupled between the water trapping device and the fluid reservoir, wherein the filter is configured to filter the water droplets output by the water trapping device. However, Hausman, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a humidification system comprising a water trapping device (cathode-side water separator 9) configured to trap water droplets extracted from the exhaust air to generate a dry exhaust air stream [Hausmann – pars. 0026; Fig. 1], and a fluid reservoir (tank 20) coupled between the water trapping device and an injector 11, wherein the fluid reservoir is configured to receive and store the water droplets from the water trapping device [Hausmann – pars. 0026; Fig. 1]. Hausmann further teaches that a water filter can be arranged between water separator and a collecting container to mechanically hold back impurities and to remove ions which have collected in the water [Hausmann – par. 0014]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Hausmann to have further modified the system of Meissner to comprise a filter fluidically coupled between the water trapping device and the fluid reservoir, wherein the filter is configured to filter the water droplets output by the water trapping device to hold back impurities and to remove ions which have collected in the water.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hausmann (US20240014418A1 – foreign priority day 12/18/2020).
Regarding Claims 22-23, Meissner fails to disclose: wherein the injector is a first injector, and wherein the humidification system further includes a second injector downstream of the first injector and upstream of the cathode inlet of the fuel cell stack (claim 22), and the system further comprises a charge air cooler disposed between the first injector and the second injector (claim 23). However, Hausmann, from the same field of endeavor, teaches arranging multiple water injection nozzles/humidifiers in a sequential cascade along the intake air stream upstream of the cathode [Hausmann – pars. 0016,0027; Fig. 1]. Hausmann further teaches that compressed intake air passes through an intercooler (charge air cooler) disposed along the supply line to cool compressed air before or during staged humidification [Hausmann – pars. 0002,0009]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Hausmann to have modified the system of Meissner wherein the injector is a first injector, and wherein the humidification system further includes a second injector downstream of the first injector and upstream of the cathode inlet of the fuel cell stack (claim 22), and the system further comprises a charge air cooler disposed between the first injector and the second injector (claim 23), in order to provide staging of injection across a charge air cooler to enable greater variability of the structure and allow different material flows to be humidified efficiently.
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 HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights