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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claims 1, 11 and 17, Applicant has amended the claims to include the limitation “two or more fuel cell system exhaust lines that are connected to a condensate drain line and directly to at least one of the fuel cell systems and expel exhaust through the condensate drain line”. This limitation states that the fuel cell systems are directly connected to the “two or more fuel cell system exhaust lines”. In the originally filed disclosure, this is not disclosed. See annotated Fig. 14 below which illustrates an intermediate line in between the fuel cell system and the fuel cell system exhaust line.
Furthermore, this limitation states that “two or more fuel cell system exhaust lines” are directly connected to “at least one of the fuel cell systems”. In other words, this limitation is stating that two fuel cell system exhaust lines can be connected to a single fuel cell system. This embodiment is not taught in the originally filed disclosure. Each fuel cell system appears to be connected to only a single fuel cell system exhaust line, as illustrated in Fig. 14.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arikara (US 7,166,985) in view of Adcock (US 10,505,208).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 10, 11 and 16, Arikara discloses a fuel cell power plant cooling system, comprising:
a power unit coolant supply line configured to receive a coolant (coolant flows through pumps 179, 180 into supply lines 181A, 181B);
two or more fuel cell system coolant supply lines connected to the power unit coolant supply line and configured to receive coolant from the power unit coolant supply line (see annotated Fig. 9 below);
two or more fuel cell systems (50A, 50B, 50C, 50D) configured to be cooled by the two or more fuel cell system coolant supply lines (as illustrated in Fig. 9), respectively;
two or more fuel cell system return supply lines connected to the two or more fuel cell system coolant supply lines, respectively, and configured to receive coolant from the two or more fuel cell system coolant supply lines (see annotated Fig. 9 below); and
a power unit return supply line connected to the two or more fuel cell system return supply lines and configured to receive coolant from the two or more fuel cell system return supply lines, respectively (see annotated Fig. 9 below).
Arikara teaches the condensation of an exhaust stream exiting each fuel cell (as in, multiple exhaust lines) via condenser 33, but does not go into detail regarding the flow path of the exhaust gas. More specifically, Arikara does not teach:
Exhaust lines that are connected to a condensate drain line and directly to at least one of the fuel cell systems and expel exhaust through the condensate drain line.
Adcock also discloses a fuel cell system (see abstract).
Adcock, like Arikara, teaches managing water coming out of the fuel cell by condensing it and separating it from the exhaust gas stream (via condenser/water separator 1). Adcock teaches an exhaust stream (8) that is directly connected to the fuel cell and teaches a condensate drain line (32) that allows for water to exit the vertical separator (1). Adcock teaches such a configuration in order to manage water in an exhaust stream from a fuel cell while also providing a configuration in which the expelled water can be utilized again as a recycle stream (col. 4 lines 50-54).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the water/gas separator and drain line of Adcock to the system of Arikara in order to manage water and gas exiting the fuel cell while also providing a water source for fuel cell operation without the need for an external water source.
Furthermore, Arikara, as modified by Adcock, does not explicitly disclose multiple fuel cells feeding into this water separator and drain line. However, seeing that Arikara teaches the benefits of multiple fuel cells/modules operating with the same feed/exhaust tubing/lines (in order to continue operation if one fuel cell is down, see abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to feed multiple fuel cells into the exhaust gas/liquid separator of modified Arikara in order to allow for continued operation should one fuel cell go down, while also reducing the need to build multiple gas/liquid separators for each fuel cell unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
723
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 of Arikara
Regarding claims 2, 3, 12 and 13, Arikara further discloses a configuration where an end of the power unit coolant supply line and return line is capped (such is the case when valves 175 and 176 are closed).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 14 and 15, Arikara further discloses an end of the power unit coolant supply/return line is connected to a power unit coolant supply/return line of a second fuel cell power plant cooling system (Arikara teaches two cooling systems that are connected to each other and are capable of being operated in a way in which one cooling supply conduit feeds the supply conduit of the second cooling supply system).
Regarding claim 7, Arikara teaches a rack configuration of the fuel cells (see Fig. 4) where the fuel cell module (53) slides in and out of rack 51A. However, Arikara does not teach two or more slidable fuel cell skids. However, adding another slidable fuel cell skid would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Such a modification would have been nothing more than a simple duplication of parts. Duplicating the fuel cell power module (53) would have been beneficial in that it would allow for more power production.
Regarding claim 8, Arikara, as modified above, teaches condensate from the fuel cells flowing down a drain line and illustrates a scenario where the drain line is parallel to the ground plane (see Fig. 5 of Adcock with illustrates a drain line 18 that is connected to the exhaust line of Adcock and flows horizontally or parallel to the ground).
Regarding claim 9, Arikara, as modified above, further discloses that the exhaust lines are oriented in the vertical direction relative to the ground plane (as illustrated in Fig. 5 of Adcock which shows the exhaust lines, which lead to the water storage/drain line 16, 18 are oriented in the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 17, Arikara discloses a fuel cell power plant cooling system, comprising:
a power unit coolant supply line configured to receive a coolant (coolant flows through pumps 179, 180 into supply lines 181A, 181B);
two or more fuel cell system coolant supply lines connected to the power unit coolant supply line and configured to receive coolant from the power unit coolant supply line (see annotated Fig. 9 below);
two or more fuel cell systems (50A, 50B, 50C, 50D) configured to be cooled by the two or more fuel cell system coolant supply lines (as illustrated in Fig. 9), respectively;
two or more fuel cell system return supply lines connected to the two or more fuel cell system coolant supply lines, respectively, and configured to receive coolant from the two or more fuel cell system coolant supply lines (see annotated Fig. 9 below); and
a power unit return supply line connected to the two or more fuel cell system return supply lines and configured to receive coolant from the two or more fuel cell system return supply lines, respectively (see annotated Fig. 9 below).
Arikara further discloses an end of the power unit coolant supply/return line is connected to a power unit coolant supply/return line of a second fuel cell power plant cooling system (Arikara teaches two cooling systems that are connected to each other and are capable of being operated in a way in which one cooling supply conduit feeds the supply conduit of the second cooling supply system).
Arikara teaches the condensation of an exhaust stream exiting each fuel cell (as in, multiple exhaust lines) via condenser 33, but does not go into detail regarding the flow path of the exhaust gas. More specifically, Arikara does not teach:
Exhaust lines that are connected to a condensate drain line and directly to at least one of the fuel cell systems and expel exhaust through the condensate drain line.
Adcock also discloses a fuel cell system (see abstract).
Adcock, like Arikara, teaches managing water coming out of the fuel cell by condensing it and separating it from the exhaust gas stream (via condenser/water separator 1). Adcock teaches an exhaust stream (8) that is directly connected to the fuel cell and teaches a condensate drain line (32) that allows for water to exit the vertical separator (1). Adcock teaches such a configuration in order to manage water in an exhaust stream from a fuel cell while also providing a configuration in which the expelled water can be utilized again as a recycle stream (col. 4 lines 50-54).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the water/gas separator and drain line of Adcock to the system of Arikara in order to manage water and gas exiting the fuel cell while also providing a water source for fuel cell operation without the need for an external water source.
Furthermore, Arikara, as modified by Adcock, does not explicitly disclose multiple fuel cells feeding into this water separator and drain line. However, seeing that Arikara teaches the benefits of multiple fuel cells/modules operating with the same feed/exhaust tubing/lines (in order to continue operation if one fuel cell is down, see abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to feed multiple fuel cells into the exhaust gas/liquid separator of modified Arikara in order to allow for continued operation should one fuel cell go down, while also reducing the need to build multiple gas/liquid separators for each fuel cell unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
723
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Arikara further discloses a configuration where an end of the power unit coolant supply line and return line is capped (such is the case when valves 175 and 176 are closed).
Regarding claim 19, Arikara further discloses an end of the power unit coolant supply/return line is connected to a power unit coolant supply/return line of a second fuel cell power plant cooling system (Arikara teaches two cooling systems that are connected to each other and are capable of being operated in a way in which one cooling supply conduit feeds the supply conduit of the second cooling supply system).
Regarding claim 20, Arikara further discloses a configuration where an end of the power unit coolant supply line and return line is capped (such is the case when valves 175 and 176 are closed).
Relevant Prior Art
US 2003/0118883 – Discloses a fuel cell system in which condensate from a cathode exhaust line is separated via gravity and fed back into the cooling system of the fuel cell.
US 9,034,533 – Discloses a fuel cell system with multiple parallel cooling circuits for cooling multiple fuel cells.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8, Applicant argues that Adcock does not teach direct connection of the exhaust line to the fuel cell system. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument. As described above in the rejection, the “exhaust line” of Adcock can be line 8 which directly connects to the fuel cell system 2 and expels exhaust through the condensate drain line 32.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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 J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725