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 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: (1) for sake of clarity, the phrase “compare a first flow rate by first flow rate control” should be written as “compare a first flow rate by a first flow rate control,” (2) for sake of clarity, the phrase “and a second flow rate by second flow rate control” should be written as “and a second flow rate by a second flow rate control,” and (3) for sake of clarity, the phrase “to larger one of the first flow rate or the second flow rate” should be written as “to a larger one of the first flow rate of the second flow rate.” 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.
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 increase and decrease of power generation electric power." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (JP 2012069333, provided by Applicant in the 02/05/24 IDS and using Applicant’s provided translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Hamachi et al. (US 2017/0250426) and Schrieber et al. (US 2009/0123783).
Regarding Claim 1, Ota teaches a fuel cell system (“fuel cell system”) (Abstract, [0021]-[0022]). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Ota teaches that the fuel cell system comprises a fuel cell stack (10) including a plurality of stack power generation units (12), wherein each of said units comprises a membrane electrode assembly and separators sandwiching said membrane electrode assembly, wherein said membrane electrode assembly comprises a cathode (26), an anode (24), and a solid polymer electrolyte membrane (22) interposed therebetween ([0022]-[0024]). As illustrated in Figure 2, Ota teaches that a fuel gas flow field (“anode flow field”) configured to allow a fuel gas to flow along the anode, an oxygen-containing gas flow field (“cathode flow field”) configured to allow an oxygen-containing gas to flow along the cathode, and a coolant flow field (“medium flow field”) configured to allow a coolant (“heat exchange medium” to flow adjacent said fuel gas and oxygen-containing gas flow fields, are formed in the separators ([0030], [0032]-[0037]). As illustrated in Figure 1 (and the annotated Figure 1 below), Ota teaches that the fuel cell system comprises a “medium supply apparatus” configured to supply the coolant to the coolant flow field through a “medium inlet pipe,” and collect and cool the coolant which flowed inside the fuel cell stack through a “medium outlet pipe,” a temperature detector (120) (“temperature acquisition unit”) configured to obtain a temperature of the coolant in the coolant outlet pipe as a coolant outlet temperature, and a controller (122) which controls the operation of the fuel cell system ([0049], [0059]-[0062], [0065]).
Ota teaches that the controller functions so as to control the medium supply apparatus, wherein when it is determined that the temperature detector detects that the coolant outlet temperature (Tmain) is less than or equal to a preset temperature (Tset) (“if the medium outlet temperature is less than the threshold temperature”), then a predetermined flow rate (i.e. the flow rate set in step S2) is decreased in correspondence with a decrease of the coolant outlet temperature and the coolant is suppled to the coolant flow field at a decreased flowrate from said predetermined flow rate ([0064]-[0065]). However, Ota teaches that when it is determined that Tmain is greater than Tset (“if the medium outlet temperature is not less than a threshold temperature”), then the coolant remains supplied to the coolant flow field ([0066]-[0068]).
While the coolant remains suppled to the coolant flow field when Tmain is greater than Tset, Ota does not explicitly teach that the coolant is supplied at a predetermined flow rate.
However, Hamachi teaches a fuel cell system (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1, Hamachi teaches that the fuel cell system comprises a coolant supply device (18) which supplies coolant to a fuel cell stack (12) ([0053]). Hamachi teaches that when the temperature of the fuel cell stack reaches a predetermined threshold, the coolant is suppled at a predetermined high flow rate ([0057]). Hamachi teaches that in said instance, the high flow rate of the coolant helps equalize the temperature distribution in the stacking direction of the fuel cell stack ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, when Tmain is greater than Tset in Ota, supply the coolant at a predetermined high flow rate (“predetermined flow rate”), as taught by Hamachi, given that a high flow rate of coolant would help equalize the temperature distribution in the stacking direction of the fuel cell stack.
Ota, as modified by Hamachi, does not explicitly teach that the controller comprises one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, wherein said instructions cause the controller to control operation of the fuel cell system.
However, Schrieber teaches a fuel cell system (Abstract, [0016]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Schrieber teaches that the system comprises a controller (100) which includes one or more processors which execute computer-executable instructions (104) stored in a memory (102) for regulating, monitoring, and controlling various aspects of the system ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would include, in the controller of Ota, as modified by Hamachi, one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, wherein said instructions cause the controller to control operation of the fuel cell system, as taught by Schrieber, given that such a modification would allow the fuel cell system to be regulated, monitored, and controlled in an electronic manner by a computer configured for use with the fuel cell system.
PNG
media_image1.png
733
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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 to overcome all applicable objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as previously described).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 further limits the fuel cell system of Claim 1 by requiring that the heat exchange medium is supplied to the medium flow field at the predetermined rate if the medium outlet temperature is not less than the threshold temperature, and requiring the instantly claimed comparison be performed, and requiring that the supply flow rate is controlled to a larger one of the first or second flow rate determined as claimed.
Ota, as modified by Hamachi and Schrieber, neither teaches nor suggests the instantly claimed functionality. At a minimum, neither Ota, nor Hamachi, nor Schrieber teach or suggest the performance of a comparison as instantly claimed or controlling a supply flow rate to a larger one of a first or second flow rate determined as claimed.
Claim 3 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 further limits the fuel cell system of Claim 1 by requiring regulation of the predetermined flow rate to a maximum flow rate, and if an increase speed of inlet pressure in the anode flow field becomes not less than a predetermined speed or if the inlet pressure becomes not less than a predetermined pressure, then the medium supply apparatus is allowed to supply the heat exchange medium at the maximum flow rate.
Ota, as modified by Hamachi and Schrieber, neither teaches nor suggests the instantly claimed functionality. At best, Hamachi discloses potential benefits associated with a predetermined high coolant flow rate. However Hamachi (as well as Ota and Schrieber) does not explicitly teach supplying coolant at a maximum coolant flow rate in specific response to an increase speed of inlet pressure in the anode flow field becoming not less than a predetermined speed or if the inlet pressure becoming not less than a predetermined pressure.
Conclusion
The following is a list of references relevant to the instant Claims, but not relied upon in a rejection:
Lee et al. (US 2016/0149238) discloses a method and apparatus for controlling a cooling pump of a fuel cell system (Abstract). Lee teaches that the apparatus includes a storage which is configured to store a table in the RPM of the cooling pump corresponding to temperature are recorded, wherein a controller operates a pump driver based on the stored table to adjust the RPM of the cooling pump to correspond to a measured temperature of the coolant ([0030]-[0033]).
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 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728