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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/01/2026.
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 7 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 7 recites the limitation “a pump is provided between the mixing tank and a humidifier, which may be same or different from the at least one cathode gas pump.” Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends on, recites “at least one cathode gas pump provided between the mixing tank and the gas-liquid separator and between the mixing tank and the power generation unit.” It is unclear how the same pump can simultaneously satisfy those two separate locations or arrangement configuration.
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 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gopal et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0065711).
Regarding claim 1, Gopal teaches a cathode circulation system of a fuel cell connected to a power generation unit of the fuel cell (paragraph [0038]) (see figure 1), the cathode circulation system comprises:
a first gas supply tank for providing an inert gas (i.e., nitrogen storage tank) (14) (paragraph [0041]) (see figure 1);
a second gas supply tank for providing a reaction gas (i.e., oxygen storage tank) (16) (paragraph [0041]) (see figure 1);
a mixing tank (i.e., oxidant manifold) (160) (paragraph [0068]) connected to the first gas supply tank and the second gas supply tank for mixing the inert gas and the reaction gas (paragraph [0068]) (see figure 4)
a gas-liquid separator (i.e., water trap) (42, 168) connected to the power generation unit (paragraph [0044], [0055]-[0056], [0068]) (see figures 1 and 4); and
at least one cathode gas pump (i.e., cathode recirculator such as a pump) (44, 170) (paragraph [0044]-[0045], [0068]) provided between the mixing tank and the gas-liquid separator and between the mixing tank and the power generation unit (see figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Gopal teaches a buffer tank (i.e., cathode manifold) (166) (paragraph [0068], [0074]) is provided between the gas-liquid separator and the mixing tank (see figure 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, Gopal teaches a first flow meter (i.e., flow control device) (18) (paragraph [0041]) is provided between the first gas supply tank and the mixing tank (see figure 1); and
a second flow meter (i.e., a flow control device) (20) (paragraph [0041]) is provided between the second gas supply tank and the mixing tank (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Gopal teaches wherein each one of the first flow meter (18) and the second flow meter (20) operates individually or simultaneously based on at least one of a concentration gradient and a pressure gradient of at least one of the inert gas and the reaction gas in the cathode circulation system (i.e., nitrogen and oxygen flow is regulated by various sensors – pressure, concentration) (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Gopal teaches the at least one cathode gas pump provides a gain value based on an operation of at least one of the first flow meter and the second flow meter (i.e., the flow control device 20 is connected to an oxygen control valve 45 and the cathode recirculator 44) (paragraph [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 7, Gopal teaches the at least one cathode gas pump is provided between the mixing tank and a buffer tank (see figure 1 and 4) (i.e., cathode recirculator such as a pump) (44, 170) (paragraph [0044]-[0045], [0068]).
Regarding claim 8, a reaction gas concentration meter (i.e., nitrogen and oxygen sensor) (54, 56) (paragraph [0046]) is provided between the mixing tank and the power generation unit (see figure 1 and 4); and the reaction gas concentration meter is set with a system operation concentration threshold (i.e., monitor levels in the incoming cathode gas flow) (paragraph [0046]) (see figure 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopal et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0065711).
Regarding claim 2, Gopal does not explicitly articulate “a humidifier is provided between the mixing tank and the power generation unit.”. However, Gopal teaches humidifiers devices can be placed in the cathode circulation system to control humidity of process gases (paragraph [0056]). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could have considered adding a humidifier between the mixing tank and the power generation unit to control the humidity of the cathode gas between these two process control units, as suggested by Gopal.
Regarding claim 10, Gopal teaches a mixing ratio of the reaction gas and the inert gas is substantially similar to that of oxygen and nitrogen in air (i.e., oxygen concentration of the reactant is between 20-50 percent – which results in nitrogen being 50-80 percent) (abstract).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopal et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0065711), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Darling (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0317362).
Regarding claim 9, Gopel teaches the cathode circulation system as described above in claim 1.
Gopel does not teach the specifics of a temporary water tank is provided between the gas-liquid separator and a buffer tank.
Darling, teaches a fuel cell stack having a cathode fluid flow path (paragraph [0041]. Further, Darling teaches a gas liquid separator that can include a tank that allows liquid to be removed and transported back to the fuel cell for reuse (paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gopel system to place a tank between the gas-liquid separator and the buffer tank, in order to store the liquid from the water separator and recirculate it back to the fuel cell system, as suggested by Daring.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Blaszczyk et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0087233). Blaszczyk teaches a fuel cell system with a cathode circulation path (paragraph [0010]).
Yachi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0260056). Yachi teaches a fuel cell including a gas water separator and a tank (paragraph [0018]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights