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
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 1/9/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (JP 2005/038715, see Machine Translation) in view of Kajiwara et al. (JP 2005/228477, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Nakayama discloses in Figs 1-6, a fuel cell vehicle ([0048]) having a radiator (ref 8), the fuel cell vehicle ([0048]) comprising: a fuel cell (ref 5) configured to discharge product water ([0012]) as a result of generation of power ([0012]); a first storage unit (ref 1) configured to store the product water as a first liquid ([0012]); a second storage unit (ref 6) configured to store an additive liquid as a second liquid ([0009]-[0010], antifreeze), the additive liquid having a higher viscosity ([0009]-[0010], antifreeze) than the first liquid ([0012]); a pump (ref 4) configured to pump the first liquid alone at a pressure corresponding to a pumping control signal ([0012]-[0018], Fig 1); a first valve (ref 3) disposed between (Fig 1) the first storage unit (ref 1) and the pump (ref 4), the first valve (ref 3) being opened or closed in response to a first valve control signal ([0014]-[0018], [0033], Fig 1); a second valve (ref 9) disposed between the second storage unit (ref 6) and the pump (ref 4), the second valve (ref 9) being opened or closed in response to a second valve control signal ([0010], [0020], Fig 1); and a controller (ref 20) configured to determine, based on a temperature of the radiator (ref 8, [0010]-[0013]), at least one of whether to cool the radiator (ref 8, [0010]-[0013]) or an extent to which the radiator is cooled (ref 8, [0010]-[0013]), and to generate the pumping control signal, the first valve control signal, and the second valve control signal based on a result of the determination ([0013], [0020], Fig 1 depicts controller controlling operation of refs 10, 11, 3, 4, 6, 7, see annotation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
246
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nakayama does not explicitly disclose the first liquid and the second liquid are mixed, a mixed liquid of the first liquid and the second liquid or the first liquid alone to the radiator at a pressure corresponding to a pumping control signal.
Kajiwara et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a vehicle fuel cell system ([0001]) including a fuel cell (ref 10) including a water storage tank (ref 26) and an antifreeze storage tank (ref 30) comprising ethylene glycol ([0021]) connected via conduits (refs 28, 32) with a switching valve (ref 24) there between (Fig 1). A controller (ref 50) operates the switching valve (ref 24) to allow mixing of water from tank (ref 26) and antifreeze from tank (ref 30) based on sensed temperature conditions via a pump ([0018], [0026], [0035], [0036]). This configuration of mixing the pure water and ethylene glycol allows for enhanced temperature control of liquids and the fuel cell in general, resulting in enhanced fuel cell system operating efficiency and lower operating costs ([0037], [0004], [0007], [0018], [0026], [0035], [0036]).
Kajiwara et al. and Nakayama are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cell systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the mixing of water and ethylene glycol antifreeze function via the switching valve configuration disclosed by Kajiwara et al. into the structure of Nakayama to realized enhanced temperature control of liquids and the fuel cell in general, resulting in enhanced fuel cell system operating efficiency and lower operating costs.
Regarding claim 4, modified Nakayama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the controller (ref 20) generates at least one of the first valve control signal or the second valve control signal ([0012]-[0018], Fig 1) so that, after the mixed liquid pumped by the pump (ref 4) is discharged to the radiator (ref 8), the first liquid alone is discharged to the radiator (ref 8). Namely, the envisaged combination of Kajiwara et al. and Nakayama results in the switching valve (ref 24 of Kajawara et al above) to mix the liquid water and antifreeze liquids and also allows the first liquid water to be directly pumped to the radiator (see the envisaged combination of Kajiwara et al. and Nakayama as set forth above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nakayama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the second storage unit comprises: a first room configured to store the additive liquid as the second liquid; a second room configured to store coolant to cool the fuel cell or a battery; and a partition wall separating the first room and the second room.
Kajiwara et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, the vehicle fuel cell system ([0001]) includes a separating container unit (ref 38) that stores a water and antifreeze mix in two different compartments separated by a partition membrane wall ([0020]-[0021]). This structural configuration allows separation of liquids utilized during operation of the fuel cell system ([0020]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the separation container unit disclosed by Kajiwara et al. into the structure of Nakayama to allow for separation of liquids utilized during operation of the fuel cell system, thereby enhancing overall fuel cell system operation and costs thereof.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (JP 2005/038715, see Machine Translation) in view of Kajiwara et al. (JP 2005/228477, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alessi et al. (US 2005/0175874).
Regarding 2, modified Nakayama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the controller generates at least one of the first valve control signal or the second valve control signal so that the mixed liquid pumped by the pump has a viscosity proportional to a temperature of the radiator.
Alessi et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a fuel cell system (Abstract) including a fuel cell stack (ref 20) and a coolant subsystem (ref 10) comprising a radiator (ref 70). The coolant subsystem (ref 10) operates a coolant flow rate dependent on a viscosity of the coolant relative to operating temperatures ([0031]). This configuration enhances coolant flow in the fuel cell system, thereby enhancing overall fuel cell system performance ([0003], [0013], [0031]).
Alessi et al. and Nakayama are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cell systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the coolant flow control based on a viscosity of the fuel cell system operating at a given temperature into the fuel cell system of Nakayama as disclosed by Alessi et al. to enhance coolant flow in the fuel cell system, thereby enhancing overall fuel cell system performance.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (JP 2005/038715, see Machine Translation) in view of Kajiwara et al. (JP 2005/228477, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2003/0219635).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nakayama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the controller generates the pumping control signal so that a pressure of the mixed liquid pumped by the pump is inversely proportional to a temperature of the radiator.
Lee et al. discloses in Figs 1-4, a fuel cell system (Abstract) including a fuel cell stack ([0016]) and a cooling system (ref 72). The cooling system (ref 72) includes a pump (ref 74) that moves coolant within the system ([0020]). The pump (ref 74) is responsive to temperature and pressure of the system and the pump (ref 74) is controlled (via ref 82, controller) to operate based on sensed pressure and temperature (via refs 84[, [0020]) of the system and coolant ([0020], [0022]). This configuration enhances coolant movement within the coolant system enhancing overall fuel cell system performance ([007]-[0008], [0024]).
Lee et al. and Nakayama are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the pressure and temperature pump operation disclosed by Lee et al. into the control structure of Nakayama to enhance coolant movement within the system thereby enhancing overall fuel cell system performance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (JP 2005/038715, see Machine Translation) in view of Kajiwara et al. (JP 2005/228477, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsu et al. (US 2008/0286623).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nakayama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a condensed water generating unit configured to supply condensed water generated in the fuel cell vehicle to the first storage unit as the first liquid.
Hsu et al. discloses in Figs 1-7, a fuel cell apparatus (ref 200) including a fuel cell module (ref 210). Water generated during fuel cell module operation is condensed via heat exchanging assembly (ref 220, [0034]) and flowed into a tank (ref 240). This allows water to be recycled within the fuel cell system, thereby enhancing overall system operation and performance ([0034]).
Hsu et al. and Nakayama are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cell systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the condenser disclosed by Hsu et al. into the system structure of Nakayama to allow water to be recycled within the fuel cell system, thereby enhancing overall system operation and performance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (JP 2005/038715, see Machine Translation) in view of Kajiwara et al. (JP 2005/228477, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamoto et al. (US 2015/0303496).
Regarding claim 9, modified Nakayama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a spray unit configured to spray the mixed liquid pumped by the pump to the radiator in a mist form.
Nakamoto et al. discloses in Figs 1-8, a fuel cell system (Abstract, ref 10) including a coolant storage unit (ref 43) that supplies coolant ([0052]-[0053]) to a fuel cell ([0033]). Coolant from the coolant storage unit (ref 43) is connected to a coolant supply line (ref 64). The coolant supply line (ref 64) includes a nozzle (ref 64a) to deliver the coolant as a spray mist to the fuel cell ([0053]). This configuration enhances the cooling and coolant delivery of the fuel cell, enhancing overall fuel cell system performance ([0023], [0052]-[0053]).
Nakamoto et al. and Nakayama are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cell systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the spray nozzle disclosed by Nakamoto et al. into the second liquid line of Nakayama to allow the antifreeze to be sprayed within the system, enhancing coolant delivery and as such enhancing overall fuel cell system performance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (JP 2005/038715, see Machine Translation) in view of Kajiwara et al. (JP 2005/228477, see Machine Translation) and Nakamoto et al. (US 2015/0303496) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Alva (US 2004/0001985).
Regarding claim 10, Nakayama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a turbulence generator disposed between the pump and the spray unit to again mix the first liquid and the second liquid contained in the mixed liquid with each other.
Alva discloses in Figs 1-2, a fuel cell system (Abstract) including a fuel cell (ref 10) a cooling system therein (ref 2). The cooling system includes a coolant tank (ref 20) having a mixer therein ([0032]). This enhances the heat transfer efficiency of the coolant in the fuel cell, thereby enhancing overall fuel cell system performance ([0032]).
Alva and Nakayama are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cell systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the mixer disclosed by Alva into the antifreeze delivery components of Nakayama to enhance heat transfer efficiency of the coolant, thereby enhancing overall fuel cell system performance.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (JP 2005/038715, see Machine Translation) in view of Kajiwara et al. (JP 2005/228477, see Machine Translation) and Nakamoto et al. (US 2015/0303496) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Darling (US 2010/0047629).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nakayama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a first time for which the mixed liquid is sprayed to the radiator is shorter than a second time for which the first liquid is sprayed to the radiator.
Darling discloses in Figs 1-5, a fuel cell system (Abstract, ref 2) including a coolant flow system ([0019]). The coolant flow system ([0019]) includes supplying a coolant liquid water ([0019]) through a coolant flow field which is controlled by a valve (ref 21, [0019]). The valve (ref 21) is controlled by a timer (ref 1, [0019]). Incorporating time control to valve operation enhances overall coolant flow within the fuel cell system, enhancing overall fuel cell system efficiency and performance ([0019], [0001]).
Darling and Nakayama are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cell systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the timer control disclosed by Darling into the antifreeze valve control of Nakayama to introduce timing as a control aspect of the system of Nakayama, thereby enhancing overall liquid flow and enhancing overall fuel cell system efficiency and performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Instant dependent claim 7 discloses a volume of the first room and a volume of the second room are determined based on a change cycle of the coolant; and instant dependent claim 11 discloses the turbulence generator comprises: an inlet configured to receive the mixed liquid pumped by the pump; an outlet configured to discharge the mixed liquid containing the first liquid and the second liquid mixed again with each other to the spray unit; and a body disposed between the inlet and the outlet, the body having a serpentine shaped mixing flow path formed therein to allow the mixed liquid to flow therethrough. Each of these dependent claims includes features which are not disclosed nor rendered obvious by the above-cited prior art references. Namely, the first and second rooms having different volumes corresponding to a change cycle of the coolant has not been disclosed or rendered obvious by the applied prior art references. Also, the explicit structure of the turbulence generator spatially located as disclosed within the instant fuel cell vehicle structure has not been disclosed or rendered obvious by the above-cited prior art references. Further, no additional prior art was found that discloses or renders obvious the aforementioned structural limitations in combination with the aforementioned prior art references. As such, these limitations have been found to be allowable over the cited prior art references of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725