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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency, the term “back pressure valve” should be written as “backpressure valve.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency, the phrase “the system” should be written as “the powertrain system.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency, the phrase “in the system” should be written as “in the powertrain system.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency, the phrase “in the system” should be written as “in the powertrain system.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the letter “s” should be deleted from the phrase (emphasis added) “first air stream entering s the fuel cell stack.” 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.
Claims 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation "the opening of the backpressure valve." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first flow stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second flow stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 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 2 recites the limitation "the second exhaust stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-8 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 3 recites the limitation "the pressure of the first air stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the outlet pressure of the second air stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the reference mass air flow rate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the flow error." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 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.
The term “about” in Claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 4 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how far away from “1 gram/sec” a given flow error can be yet still be considered “about” 1 gram/sec.
The term “about” in Claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 4 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how far away from “10 kPa” a given outlet pressure can be yet still be considered “about” 10 kPa.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the stack inlet pressure." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the backpressure valve outlet pressure." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-8 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 the limitation "the backpressure valve opening." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The term “about” in Claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 how far away from “4%” a given percentage can be yet still be considered “about” 4%.
Claim 9 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 9 recites the limitation "the oxygen use rate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the water production rate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-20 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 10 recites the limitation "the flow of the first air stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the flow of the second air stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the opening of the backpressure valve." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first flow stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that this phrase is also present in Claims 12 and 13).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second flow stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that this phrase is also present in Claim 13).
Claim 11 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 11 recites the limitation "the second exhaust stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-20 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 13 recites the limitation "the combined effective flow area." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the pressure of the first air stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the outlet pressure." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the reference mass air flow rate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the flow error." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the flow rate of the first air stream." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-17 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 14 recites the limitation "the effective flow area." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the backpressure valve opening." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 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.
The term “about” in Claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 16 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how far away from “4%” a given percentage can be yet still be considered “about” 4%.
Claim 17 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.
The term “about” in Claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 17 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how far away from “1 gram/sec” a given flow error can be yet still be considered “about” 1 gram/sec.
The term “about” in Claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 17 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how far away from “10 kPa” a given outlet pressure can be yet still be considered “about” 10 kPa.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the difference." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the stack inlet." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the backpressure valve outlet pressure." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 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 18 recites the limitation "the oxygen use rate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the water production rate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 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 19 recites the limitation "calculating WO2 and WH2O." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that there does not appear to be a previous step outlining that said variables are calculated).
Claim 20 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.
The term “about” in Claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 20 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how far away from “75°C” and/or “120°C” a given temperature can be yet still be considered “about” 75°C to “about” 120°C.
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, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salvador et al. (US 6,815,106).
Regarding Claim 1, Salvador teaches a powertrain system of an electric vehicle (Abstract, col. 1 lines 6-10). As illustrated in Figure 3 (and the annotated Figure 3 below), Salvador teaches that the system comprises a compressor (76) (“air compressor”) and a cooler (80) (“air cooler”) connected to a fuel cell (62) (“fuel cell stack”), a “first air stream” configured to flow through the compressor and the cooler into the fuel cell, a pressure regulator valve (90) (“backpressure valve”) configured to be opened or closed by a controller (96) (“controller”), a “second air stream” configured to flow out of the fuel cell as a first exhaust stream through the pressure regulator valve, and pressure sensors (94, 102) positioned along the first or second air streams (“one or more sensors adapted to measure pressure or temperature of the first air stream or second air stream”) (col. 7 line 41 to col. 8 line 4). In an effort to keep the pressure of the air entering the fuel cell substantially constant or near a preset pressure point, Salvador teaches that the opening of the pressure regulator valve by the controller is configured to depend on, at least, the pressure of the first and second air streams based on signals sent from said pressure sensors (“the opening of the backpressure valve by the controller is configured to depend on flow rate, pressure or temperature of the first flow stream and of the second flow stream”) (col. 7 line 41 to col. 8 line 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Salvador teaches a powertrain system of an electric vehicle (Abstract, col. 1 lines 6-10). As illustrated in Figure 3 (and the annotated Figure 3 below), Salvador teaches that the system comprises a compressor (76) (“air compressor”) and a cooler (80) (“air cooler”) connected to a fuel cell (62) (“fuel cell stack”), a “first air stream” configured to flow through the compressor and the cooler into the fuel cell, a pressure regulator valve (90) (“backpressure valve”) configured to be opened or closed by a controller (96) (“controller”), a “second air stream” configured to flow out of the fuel cell as a first exhaust stream through the pressure regulator valve, and pressure sensors (94, 102) positioned along the first or second air streams (“one or more sensors for measuring pressure or temperature in the first air stream or second air stream”) (col. 7 line 41 to col. 8 line 4).
Salvador teaches a method of controlling air flow in said powertrain system, wherein the method comprises flowing the first air stream flowing through the compressor and the cooler into the fuel cell, flowing the second air stream flowing out of the fuel cell as a first exhaust stream through the pressure regulator valve, using the pressure sensors for measuring pressure in the first or second air stream, controlling the flow of the first air stream, the flow of the second air stream, and the opening of the pressure regulator valve by the controller, wherein in an effort to keep the pressure of the air entering the fuel cell substantially constant or near a preset pressure point, Salvador teaches that the opening of the pressure regulator valve by the controller is configured to depend on, at least, the pressure of the first and second air streams based on signals sent from said pressure sensors (“the opening of the backpressure valve depends on flow rate, pressure or temperature of the first flow stream and of the second flow stream”) (col. 7 line 41 to col. 8 line 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Salvador teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 10), the method comprises the controller coupling the first air stream through the compressor and the second air stream through the pressure regulator valve to prevent instability (i.e. “prevent instability” insofar as preventing the pressure of the air entering the fuel cell from deviating from being substantially constant or deviating from being at/near a preset pressure point).
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.
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.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salvador et al. (US 6,815,106).
Regarding Claim 3, Salvador teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described,
Salvador does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the powertrain system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a powertrain system”). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, the instantly claimed control limitations are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed powertrain system, wherein the claimed controller is neither “programmed to” nor “configured to” perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, the power powertrain system of Salvador is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the powertrain system of Salvador would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Regarding Claim 4, Salvador teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described,
Salvador does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the powertrain system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a powertrain system”). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, the instantly claimed control limitations are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed powertrain system, wherein the claimed controller is neither “programmed to” nor “configured to” perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, the power powertrain system of Salvador is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the powertrain system of Salvador would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Regarding Claim 5, Salvador teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described,
Salvador does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the powertrain system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a powertrain system”). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, the instantly claimed control limitations are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed powertrain system, wherein the claimed controller is neither “programmed to” nor “configured to” perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, the power powertrain system of Salvador is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the powertrain system of Salvador would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Regarding Claim 6, Salvador teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described,
Salvador does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the powertrain system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a powertrain system”). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, the instantly claimed control limitations are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed powertrain system, wherein the claimed controller is neither “programmed to” nor “configured to” perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, the power powertrain system of Salvador is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the powertrain system of Salvador would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Regarding Claim 7, Salvador teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 6, as previously described,
Salvador does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the powertrain system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a powertrain system”). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, the instantly claimed control limitations are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed powertrain system, wherein the claimed controller is neither “programmed to” nor “configured to” perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, the power powertrain system of Salvador is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the powertrain system of Salvador would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Regarding Claim 8, Salvador teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 7, as previously described,
Salvador does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the powertrain system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a powertrain system”). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, the instantly claimed control limitations are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed powertrain system, wherein the claimed controller is neither “programmed to” nor “configured to” perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, the power powertrain system of Salvador is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the powertrain system of Salvador would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Regarding Claim 9, Salvador teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described,
Salvador does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the powertrain system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a powertrain system”). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, the instantly claimed control limitations are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed powertrain system, wherein the claimed controller is neither “programmed to” nor “configured to” perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, the power powertrain system of Salvador is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the powertrain system of Salvador possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed powertrain system, as previously described, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the powertrain system of Salvador would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Claims 2, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salvador et al. (US 6,815,106), and further in view of Farnsworth et al. (US 2020/0243880).
Regarding Claim 2, Salvador teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Salvador does not explicitly teach that the powertrain system further comprises a by-pass valve, wherein a third air stream is configured to flow through the compressor, the cooler, and exit the by-pass valve as a second exhaust stream.
However, Farnsworth teaches a fuel cell system (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 2 (and the annotated Figure 2 below), Farnsworth teaches a first air stream that flows through a compressor (110) and an intercooler (204) into a fuel cell stack (116), a second air stream that flows out of the fuel cell stack as a first exhaust stream through a backpressure valve (114), and a bypass valve (112) in a bypass path (206), wherein a third air stream flows through the compressor and the intercooler so as to exit the bypass valve as a second exhaust stream ([0041]-[0044]). Farnsworth teaches that the bypass path and valve allow the flow rate of air going into the fuel cell stack to be adjusted to a desired flowrate, and allow the compressor to provide air flow at a desired pressure ratio ([0032]).
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 include, in the powertrain system of Salvador, a bypass valve (“by-pass valve”) and bypass path which route a third air stream through the compressor and the cooler so as to exit the bypass valve as a second exhaust stream, as taught by Farnsworth, given that such a bypass path and valve would help allow the flow rate of air going into the fuel cell stack to be adjusted to a desired flowrate, and allow the compressor to provide air flow at a desired pressure ratio.
PNG
media_image2.png
593
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Salvador teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described.
Salvador does not explicitly teach that the method comprises flowing a third air stream through the compressor, the cooler, and through a by-pass valve as a second exhaust stream.
However, Farnsworth teaches a fuel cell system (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 2 (and the annotated Figure 2 below), Farnsworth teaches a first air stream that flows through a compressor (110) and an intercooler (204) into a fuel cell stack (116), a second air stream that flows out of the fuel cell stack as a first exhaust stream through a backpressure valve (114), and a bypass valve (112) in a bypass path (206), wherein a third air stream flows through the compressor and the intercooler so as to exit the bypass valve as a second exhaust stream ([0041]-[0044]). Farnsworth teaches that the bypass path and valve allow the flow rate of air going into the fuel cell stack to be adjusted to a desired flowrate, and allow the compressor to provide air flow at a desired pressure ratio ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to the method of Salvador, route a third air stream through the compressor, the cooler, and a bypass valve (“by-pass valve”) in a bypass path so as to exit as a second exhaust stream, as taught by Farnsworth, given that such a bypass path and valve would help allow the flow rate of air going into the fuel cell stack to be adjusted to a desired flowrate, and allow the compressor to provide air flow at a desired pressure ratio.
PNG
media_image2.png
593
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 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 (and rewritten so as to overcome all applicable objections and/or rejections 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 (Claims 14-20 each ultimately depend from Claim 13) further limits the method of Claim 10 by requiring that the controller implements a control scheme to deliver transient operation and resolve cross coupling between the claimed streams, wherein the controller calculates the instantly claimed control gain, combined effective flow area, and flow error in the instantly claimed manner.
Salvador neither teaches nor suggests the instantly claimed method steps. At best, and in an effort to keep the pressure of the air entering the fuel cell substantially constant or near a preset pressure point, Salvador teaches that the opening of the pressure regulator valve by the controller is configured to depend on, at least, the pressure of the first and second air streams based on signals sent from said pressure sensors. Furthermore, Farnsworth does not cure the deficiencies in Salvador insofar as Farnsworth neither teaches nor suggests calculation of control gain, combined effective flow area, and flow error in the instantly claimed manner.
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