DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/210904, “CONTROL SYSTEM FOR FLOW CONTROL VALVE”, was filed with the USPTO on 6/16/23 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 2/27/23.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 8/7/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/7/26 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment. It is noted that in response to the amendment, claim 1 has been rejected as being obvious, rather than anticipated, over Lee (US 2021/0159520). Applicant presents the following arguments.
The 112 rejection for lack of clarity has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s clarification that i) the claimed subject matter is an independent control module consisting of the flow control valve and the controller, while properly positioning external components (such as the ion filter) as environmental contexts, thereby clarifying that the other components named in the claim are not structural features of the control apparatus, and ii) “the temperature control section” of the presently claimed invention refers to a range of angles of opening angles of the claimed valve. However, art rejections remain.
Lee fails to disclose the features of the presently amended claim 1. In response, the rejection of claim 1 has been changed from an anticipation rejection to an obviousness rejection in view of the amendment. As described in MPEP 2141 III with respect to obviousness, “[p]rior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations. However, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.” In this case, the present rejection explains in detail why the claimed invention is found to be obvious over the disclosure of Lee. For example, recited limitations such as “a flow rate of the coolant flowing into the flow control valve by opening the first port is less than 50% of a maximum flow rate of the coolant flowing from the radiator into the flow control valve” is found to be obvious because Lee suggests that some significant amount of coolant may be supplied by a respective valve port in order to cool the heated coolant from the fuel cell, and that the valve corresponding to the ion filter may be controlled to decrease or block coolant flowing through the ion filter when the coolant is too hot. The skilled artisan would find the claimed limitation to be obvious as a blocked flow approaches 0% of a value of flow from the coolant, even though Lee does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation.
Claim Interpretation
A “COD heater” as in claim 8 is interpreted to refer to a cathode oxygen depletion [COD] heater.
See Lee (US 2021/0159520) at paragraph [0034] or Jeon (US 2020/0194812) at paragraphs [0008, 0045], for example.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee (US 2021/0159520).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches (Fig. 1) a control apparatus for a flow control valve, the control apparatus comprising: the flow control valve (item 160) configured to control a flow path of a coolant (abstract); and
a controller (item 170) configured to control an opening amount of the flow control valve (paragraphs [0015, 0056, 0040-0041]),
wherein the flow control valve includes ports fluidically-communicating with a fuel cell stack, a radiator, a coolant pump, and an ion filter, respectively (Figure 1 illustrates five ports for valve 160; it is noted that the fuel cell stack, the radiator, the coolant pump, and the ion filter are not components of the control apparatus of a flow control valve as claimed, and are therefore not required of the prior art. For completeness of record, these additional components are included in the fuel cell system illustrated at Fig. 1),
wherein the ports include a first port (item 165) connected to an ion filter, a second port (item 161) connected to a radiator, and a third port (item 164) connected to a fuel cell stack (see Fig. 1, noting that the valve is connected as claimed, but the additional components of the fuel cell system are not components of the control apparatus for a flow control valve, as claimed).
Regarding the 8/7/26 amendment to claim 1, Lee further teaches or suggests that when a “temperature control section” is defined as “a section between a point at which the second port connected to the radiator is completely closed and the third port connected to the fuel cell stack is completely opened and a point at which the second port connected to the radiator is completely opened and the third port connected to the fuel cell stack is completely closed”, the first port [connected to the ion filter], is opened by the controller only within a predetermined section in a temperature control section of a fuel cell thermal management system (“the controller decreases or blocks the coolant flowing into the ion filter by controlling an opening degree of a fifth entrance, which is connected with the ion filter, of the valve, when thermal energy generated from the fuel cell stack exceeds a heat radiation limit of the radiator”, paragraph [0015] indicating that at at least some temporal section, based on thermal considerations, the controller may close/block the fifth entrance [corresponding to claimed first port] so that no coolant enters or exits the ion filter; the periods when the controller blocks the flow of coolant to/from the ion filter is readable on the claimed “predetermined section”) and
wherein the controller is configured to control the flow control valve such that, as an opening angle of the flow control valve increases in the temperature control section, an opening amount of the second port increases and a closing amount of the third port increases (e.g. paragraph [0046-0047] teaches that the when the overall coolant temperature is higher than desired [due to too much heat from fuel cell], the opening amount of the port 162 [fuel cell port] is decreased while the opening amount of the port 161 [radiator port] is increased, in order to provide a cooler mixture; the opening amounts may be expressed as “x” and “1-x”, confirming the inverse relationship which is claimed. Additionally, the selection of the ratio is determined to provide a desired coolant temperature, i.e. to cool the coolant if it is too hot. Paragraphs [0057-0058] clarify that the system is designed to avoid supply of too hot coolant to the ion filter, and that the ion filter port [fifth entrance of Lee, first port in claimed invention] is controlled to prevent too hot coolant from passing through the ion filter).
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the first port is partially opened by the controller within an opening angle range of the flow control valve in which an opening amount of the third port is greater than the opening amount of the second port such that a flow rate of the coolant flowing into the flow control valve by opening the first port is less than 50% of a maximum flow rate of the coolant flowing from the radiator into the flow control valve.
However, as described in the citations above, Lee’s fifth port entrance which leads to the ion pump [the claimed first port] is designed to be decreased or blocked [suggesting partial opening] when the coolant is hot so that the ion pump is not damaged. A skilled artisan would have understood Lee’s teaching of a too-hot condition to reasonably correspond to the claimed situation wherein an opening amount of the third port is greater than the opening amount of the second port because the third port provides the coolant directly from the fuel cell, which is hot coolant, and Lee teaches increasing the amount of coolant from the radiator, via the second port, in response to this too-hot condition. The “less than 50%” limitation is obvious over Lee because although no numeric value is given, the range of closing of Lee’s fifth port [ion pump port] ranges from decreased to blocked, with blocked implying a 0% opening, which would be less than 50% of any significant amount of coolant flow from the radiator. Lee further teaches that the hot conditions exist when the heat from the fuel cell is too great relative to the amount of cooling provided from the radiator, and teaches changing the fuel cell inlet/radiator inlet ratio in order to increase cooling in this condition, thereby suggesting that the control of the first port is initiated when the opening amount of the third port [the fuel cell port] is greater than the opening amount of the second port [radiator port]).
Thus, claim 1 is found to be obvious because the claimed aspects are generally suggested by Lee, i.e. controlling the flow through an ion filter to be a small value, approaching or including a blocked valve, by use of a port of the valve, and the controller configured to perform this action based on the overall temperature of the coolant, which may be too hot when the ratio of coolant received from the fuel cell vs coolant received from the radiator is too high, and the controller is further configured to manipulate the relative opening amounts of the corresponding ports based on the temperature output from the combination. The above-described features are not necessarily part of a single inventive embodiment, but are considered obvious as the claimed invention is found to be reasonably suggested by the teachings of Lee as described above. In the event that the above-described features are not part of a single embodiment, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in combining elements of the prior art to yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result is that the ion filter can be protected by reducing coolant flow therethrough when the overall coolant output is too high, and that the coolant temperature can be lowered by adjusting the ratio of coolant from fuel cell vs radiator, so that the path to the ion filter can be reopened at an appropriate coolant temperature.
Regarding claims 2-6, Lee remains as applied to claim 1. These claims describe a particular manner of operating the device. As described in MPEP 2114 II, “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.” In this case, the additional recitations of claims 2-6 do not expressly or implicitly require any additional structure beyond that disclosed by Lee; therefore, the claims do not patentably distinguish the claimed control apparatus for a valve from that disclosed by Lee.
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Lee remains as applied to claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the flow control valve is a five-way valve (see item 160), and wherein the ports further include a fourth port (item 164) connected to the coolant pump and a fifth port (item 163) connected to a COD heater, and wherein the coolant pump is connected to the ion filter, the fuel cell stack and the COD heater in parallel (see Figure 1 for completeness, but note that the structural features of the fuel cell system are not components of the control apparatus for a flow valve).
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee (US 2021/0159520) and Lee’468 (US 2021/0028468).
Regarding claim 7 and 8, Lee remains as applied to claim 1. Lee teaches the flow control valve as a five-way valve (Fig. 1), but does not appear to teach wherein the flow control valve is a four-way valve, wherein the ports further include a fourth port connected to the coolant pump, and the control apparatus further including a bypass valve including a first port connected to the fuel cell stack, a second port connected to the COD heater and a third port connected to the ion filter and the coolant pump.
In the fuel cell art, Lee’468 teaches a fuel cell system (see Fig. 1) comprising a flow control valve, wherein the flow control valve is a four-way valve (item 40), wherein the ports further include a fourth port (item 44) connected to a coolant pump, and the control apparatus further including a bypass valve (item 20) including a first port (item 22) connected to the fuel cell stack, a second port (item 23) connected to a heater and a third port (item 21) connected to an ion filter and the coolant pump.
The substitution of the Lee five-way valve for a four-way valve is a matter of obvious engineering choice, with the skilled artisan understanding that the number of valves may be selected based on the number of paths desired for the coolant fluid and four is a suitable number of paths in view of Lee’468.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to further including a bypass valve (item 20) including a first port (item 22) connected to the fuel cell stack, a second port (item 23) connected to a heater and a third port (item 21) connected to an ion filter and the coolant pump for the benefit of facilitating precise control of coolant fluid between a heater, a fuel cell stack and the ion filter as taught by Lee’468.
Claims 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee (US 2021/0159520) and Park (US 2021/0108731).
Regarding claim 11, Lee remains as applied to claim 1. Lee only schematically illustrates the valve including the claimed ports; therefore, Lee does not teach the valve having the structure set forth in the claims.
In the fuel cell art, Park teaches a flow control valve comprising a housing (Fig. 1 structure other than the rotatable valve structure component) including the required ports to be connected to components of the fuel cell system, and a rotatable valve structure (item 35) which rotates to facilitate the desired flow path through the valve, and wherein the valve structure is formed of a plurality of stages formed of a plurality of stages (Fig. 1 depicts multiple levels for the valve, the different levels interpreted as the different stages).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to design the valve to include the named features as taught by Park, as such a valve is suitable for enabling the valve of Lee which is only schematically illustrated. Such a modification merely requires the combination of elements known in the art to yield predictable results, and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 12-18, Lee and Park remain as applied to claim 11. The valve of Park includes a port 32d on a first stage as shown in Fig. 1. The port is capable of communicating with an ion filter (e.g. paragraph [0042]); however, the actual connection to such an ion filter is an intended use of the valve instead of a structural feature thereof. It is further noted that the valve includes plural openings (such as the entrance and exit of each of the plurality of ports), and openings of varying opening area (compare ports 32a-32d), and the various ports are all adapted to convey the coolant therethrough, thus they are in fluid communication with one another. Park further teaches a stage which includes an at least partially opened opening for conveying coolant flow and may be communicated with an ion filter (e.g. via port 32d) and a stage which may communicate with a radiator and a pump (e.g. via ports 32a and 32c),
Further regarding claim 15, Park does not appear to teach an additional stage for communicating with the COD heater at least because the Park fuel cell system does not expressly utilize a COD heater. However, Lee does utilize a COD heater, and includes a port for facilitating this function as schematically illustrated in Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further including in the multiway valve, an additional stage for communicating with the COD heater for the benefit of enabling the connection schematically illustrated by Lee.
The valve structure described above with respect to claims 12-18 is found to be obvious to include for the same reasons as previously given in the rejection of claim 11, i.e. in order to enable the valve of Lee which is only schematically illustrated.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Seo (US 2012/0141890) simple 4 way valve with rotatable diverter;
Na (US 2016/0172691) 4-way valve with at least two stages;
Han (US 2020/0171914) a valve control system comprising a controller and a valve with a rotatable member and a housing;
Won (US 2021/0391588) a fuel cell system comprising a controlled valve.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights