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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/20/2022. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujita et al. (US 6,890,490 B1, hereafter Fujita).
With regard to claim 1, Fujita teaches a fuel cell system comprising:
a first valve (control valve 15) installed at an outlet of a hydrogen tank (hydrogen absorbing tank 1) on a fuel supply line connecting the hydrogen tank and a fuel cell stack [col. 6 lines 23-39, fig. 4];
a second valve (control valve 18) installed at a rear end (downstream) of the first valve on the fuel supply line [col. 6 lines 23-39, fig. 4]; and
a fuel cell control unit (controller 10) configured to control operations of the first valve and the second valve based on a state (temperature and pressure) of the hydrogen tank when a startup of the fuel cell is required [col. 3 line 22-col. 4 line 4, col. 6 lines 23-39, fig. 4].
With regard to claim 3, Fujita teaches a hydrogen manufacturing unit (hydrogen gas generator 13) configured to identify the state of the hydrogen tank (using controller 10) when the startup of the fuel cell is requested [col. 3 line 22-col. 4 line 4, col. 6 lines 23-39, fig. 4].
With regard to claim 14, Fujita teaches a fuel supply method of a fuel cell system comprising:
identifying a state (temperature and pressure) of a hydrogen tank when a startup of a fuel cell is requested [col. 3 line 22-col. 4 line 4, col. 6 lines 23-39, fig. 4]; and
controlling operations of a first valve (control valve 15) installed at an outlet of the hydrogen tank on a fuel supply line connecting the hydrogen tank on a fuel supply line connecting the hydrogen tank and a fuel cell stack and a second valve (control valve 18) installed at a rear end (downstream) of the first valve on a fuel supply line based on the state (temperature and pressure) of the hydrogen tank [col. 3 line 22-col. 4 line 4, col. 6 lines 23-39, fig. 4].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita as applied to claims 1, 3, and 14 above, and further in view of Kamihara et al. (US 2004/0241511 A1, hereafter Kamihara.
With regard to claim 2, Fujita teaches first and second valves for controlling the flow of hydrogen from a hydrogen tank [col. 3 line 22-col. 4 line 4, col. 6 lines 23-39, fig. 4] but does not explicitly teach the valves can adjust flow rate. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kamihara teaches using valves that can open varying degrees and adjust flow rates [0041, 0062]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the valve type of Kamihara with an adjustable opening degree as the valves of Fujita for the benefit of being able to regulate stack pressure and allowing for detection of hydrogen flow rate [Kamihara 0045, 0062]. Since the as filed specification [0048] indicates the preconditioning valve is a valve that is controlled and has an adjustable opening degree, the first valve modified by Kamihara would function as a preconditioning valve.
Claim(s) 4-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita as applied to claims 1, 3, and 14 above, and further in view of Ishikawa (US 2010/0098980 A1, hereafter Ishikawa.
With regard to claims 4 and 6, Fujita teaches the hydrogen manufacturing unit is configured to: identify whether pressure and temperature of the hydrogen tank are normal (using controller 10, pressure sensor 11, and temperature sensor 12), and determine that the state of the hydrogen tank is in a normal state when the pressure and temperature of the hydrogen tank are identified as normal [col. 5 lines 7-11, col. 5 lines 34-57, col. 6 lines 13-23].
Fujita teaches sensors (temperature and pressure) that would notify the controller of the state of the tank [col. 5 lines 7-11] but does not explicitly teach identifying whether a state notification function for the state of the hydrogen tank is normally operated. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches using a controller to identify whether a sensor is in an abnormal state (the state notification from the sensor would not be normally operated) [0048] and preventing operation of the fuel cell (temporarily stopping power generation, which would disable startup of a fuel cell) if the sensor is in an abnormal state (state notification not normally operated, claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the state notification (sensor) abnormal operation check of Ishikawa with the system of Fujita for the benefit of preventing excessive pressure rise [Ishikawa 0048].
With regard to claim 5, Fujita teaches a controller (10) in communication with sensors (pressure and temperature) and teaches the controller may operate valves based on information from sensors [col. 5 lines 7-11, col. 6 line 29-49]. Therefore, the system of Fujita would be capable of performing the claimed functions. Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114.
The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With regard to claim 7, Fujita teaches controlling the startup of the fuel cell when it is identified that the pressure and temperature of the hydrogen tank are normal (above a predetermined value) [col. 3 line 22-col. 4 line 4, col. 6 lines 23-39, fig. 4].
Fujita teaches sensors (temperature and pressure) that would notify the controller of the state of the tank [col. 5 lines 7-11] but does not explicitly teach identifying whether a state notification function for the state of the hydrogen tank is normally operated. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches using a controller to identify whether a sensor is in an abnormal state (the state notification from the sensor would not be normally operated) [0048] and preventing operation of the fuel cell (temporarily stopping power generation, which would disable startup of a fuel cell) if the sensor is in an abnormal state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the state notification (sensor) abnormal operation check of Ishikawa with the system of Fujita for the benefit of preventing excessive pressure rise [Ishikawa 0048].
With regard to claim 8, Fujita teaches that the fuel cell is not operated (startup disabled) if the tank pressure is not identified as normal (below 0.3 MPa) [col. 5 lines 33-44]. Fujita teaches sensors (temperature and pressure) that would notify the controller of the state of the tank [col. 5 lines 7-11] but does not explicitly teach identifying whether a state notification function for the state of the hydrogen tank is normally operated. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches using a controller to identify whether a sensor is in an abnormal state (the state notification from the sensor would not be normally operated) [0048] and preventing operation of the fuel cell (temporarily stopping power generation, which would disable startup of a fuel cell) if the sensor is in an abnormal state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the state notification (sensor) abnormal operation check of Ishikawa with the system of Fujita for the benefit of preventing excessive pressure rise [Ishikawa 0048].
With regard to claim 9, Fujita teaches opening the first valve in a state in which the second valve is closed (both valves closed for safety before system startup) [col. 5 lines 27-44].
With regard to claim 10, Fujita teaches a pressure sensor (11) that would be capable of performing the claimed functions [col. 5 lines 7-32].
With regard to claim 11, Fujita teaches pressure (11) and temperature (12) sensors that would be capable of performing the claimed functions [col. 5 lines 7-32].
With regard to claim 12, Fujita teaches a controller in communication with pressure (11) and temperature (12) sensors, control valves, and the hydrogen manufacturing unit and would therefore be capable of performing the claimed functions [col. 5 lines 7-32, col. 6 lines 23-58].
With regard to claim 13, Fujita teaches disabling startup (by stopping the compressor) after the first valve is opened (valves opened at the start of operation) when pressure and temperature are not identified as normal (pressure higher than 0.25 MPa) until a specific time period (predetermined length of time) [col. 5 lines 26-57].
With regard to claims 15 and 16, Fujita teaches identifying whether pressure and temperature are normal (above a predetermined value) [col. 6 lines 23-39, fig. 4].
Fujita teaches sensors (temperature and pressure) that would notify the controller of the state of the tank [col. 5 lines 7-11] but does not explicitly teach identifying whether a state notification function for the state of the hydrogen tank is normally operated. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches using a controller to identify whether a sensor is in an abnormal state (the state notification from the sensor would not be normally operated) [0048] and preventing operation of the fuel cell (temporarily stopping power generation, which would disable startup of a fuel cell) if the sensor is in an abnormal state (state notification not normally operated, claim 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the state notification (sensor) abnormal operation check of Ishikawa with the method of Fujita for the benefit of preventing excessive pressure rise [Ishikawa 0048].
With regard to claim 17, Fujita teaches controlling the startup of the fuel cell when it is identified that the pressure and temperature of the hydrogen tank are normal (above a predetermined value) [col. 3 line 22-col. 4 line 4, col. 6 lines 23-39, fig. 4].
Fujita teaches sensors (temperature and pressure) that would notify the controller of the state of the tank [col. 5 lines 7-11] but does not explicitly teach identifying whether a state notification function for the state of the hydrogen tank is normally operated. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches using a controller to identify whether a sensor is in an abnormal state (the state notification from the sensor would not be normally operated) [0048] and preventing operation of the fuel cell (temporarily stopping power generation, which would disable startup of a fuel cell) if the sensor is in an abnormal state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the state notification (sensor) abnormal operation check of Ishikawa with the method of Fujita for the benefit of preventing excessive pressure rise [Ishikawa 0048].
With regard to claim 18, Fujita teaches that the fuel cell is not operated (startup disabled) if the tank pressure is not identified as normal (below 0.3 MPa) [col. 5 lines 33-44]. Fujita teaches sensors (temperature and pressure) that would notify the controller of the state of the tank [col. 5 lines 7-11] but does not explicitly teach identifying whether a state notification function for the state of the hydrogen tank is normally operated. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches using a controller to identify whether a sensor is in an abnormal state (the state notification from the sensor would not be normally operated) [0048] and preventing operation of the fuel cell (temporarily stopping power generation, which would disable startup of a fuel cell) if the sensor is in an abnormal state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the state notification (sensor) abnormal operation check of Ishikawa with the method of Fujita for the benefit of preventing excessive pressure rise [Ishikawa 0048].
With regard to claim 19, Fujita teaches opening the first valve in a state in which the second valve is closed (both valves closed for safety before system startup) [col. 5 lines 27-44].
With regard to claim 20, Fujita teaches measuring a pressure of hydrogen discharged through the fuel supply line when the first valve is opened (to adjust to 0.2 MPa); and identifying the pressure and temperature of the hydrogen tank again based on the measured pressure (to keep pressure below 0.25 MPa) [col. 5 lines 24-44, col. 6 line 30-49].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724