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/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I, claim(s) 1–9, in the reply filed on 04/08/26 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 10–17 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (no new matter should be entered):
Coolant control valve with integrated first and second valves (claim 1)
COD heater (claim 1)
Cooling fan and radiator (claim 2)
Second pump, which should be labeled separately from claim 1’s “pump” (claim 2)
First–fifth ports connected to their respective fluid passages (claim 3)
Valves connected to fuel cell stack and radiator (claim 7)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: fuel cell stack 10; coolant control valve 70; controller 400; first–fifth fluid passages 110–150, respectively; COD heater 20; first pump 30; ion filter 40; cooling fan 60; first–fifth ports 71–75, respectively.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
NOTE: Applicant’s drawings filed 07/05/23 appear to not correlate to the substitute specification filed 08/01/23 based on the many examples of omitting claimed subject matter and several reference characters referenced in the substitute specification, as identified above (see also ¶ 0041, which appears to reference fig. 3 as “illustrating a coolant control valve”, but fig. 3A/B shows graphs of fuel-cell output). Examiner notes that the identified reference characters or claimed subject matter missing from the drawings may be non-exhaustive and requests that Applicant carefully review the drawings and provide all omitted reference characters and depict all claimed subject matter in replacement drawings.
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 3, lines 2 and 3, “a first port connected to the second fluid passage passing through the COD heater configured to allow the coolant to flow into the first port” should read “a first port connected to the second fluid passage passing through the COD heater, wherein the first port is configured to allow the coolant to flow into the first port” to clarify that it is the port that is configured to allow coolant flow, as clearly intended in, e.g., ¶ 0059.
In claim 3, lines 4 and 5, “a second port connected to the first fluid passage passing through the fuel cell stack configured to allow the coolant to flow into the second port” should read “a second port connected to the first fluid passage passing through the fuel cell stack, wherein the second port is configured to allow the coolant to flow into the second port” to clarify that it is the port that is configured to allow coolant flow, as clearly intended in, e.g., ¶ 0060.
In claim 4, line 3, the second “and” should be deleted for redundancy.
In claim 7, line 5, “values connected to the fuel cell stack” should read “valves connected to the fuel cell stack” for proper spelling.
In claim 8, lines 2 and 3, “a monitoring voltage of the fuel cell stack is equal to or less than a reference voltage” should read “[[a]] the monitoring voltage of the fuel cell stack is equal to or less than [[a]] the reference voltage” to denote proper antecedence from claim 6.
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(s) 1–9 is/are 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 1 recites “the coolant control valve is formed by integrating a first valve to switch a flowing path of the coolant flowing into a pump with a second valve to switch a flowing path of a coolant pumped by the pump” in lines 8–10. As the specification envisages multiple coolants (see “first”/“second coolant”, e.g., ¶ 0058 and 0066), it is unclear whether this “coolant” is meant to be the same as/further limit or be distinct from the previously recited “coolant” (see “a flowing path of a coolant through a first fluid passage” in lines 2 and 3, as well as “the coolant flowing into a pump” in line 9).
Spec.’s ¶ 0050 appears to indicate that each coolant in claim 1 is meant to be the same (see discussion of integrated CCV and control of “first coolant” into and out of pump), which is further corroborated by the coolant’s apparent flow through one loop in ¶ 0050. Thus, for this Office Action each of claim 1’s coolants will be interpreted to be the same, as appears intended in ¶ 0050.
Claim 2 recites “a second operation of controlling the valve opening amount of the coolant control valve to close a valve connected to the fuel cell stack and a radiator” in lines 3 and 4. As claim 1 seems to implicitly require the “coolant control valve”—including the “first valve” and “second valve”—to be fluidically connected to the fuel cell stack, it is unclear if claim 2’s “valve” is meant to be the same as and further limit the “first”/“second valve” or is meant to introduce a new valve.
It is further unclear whether the specification intends claim 2’s “valve” to be distinct from or to further limit claim 1’s “first”/”second” valve. The closest coincident recitation appears to be, e.g., ¶ 0021, which describes “a valve connected to the fuel cell stack”, but such is merely exemplary (by referring to an embodiment) and, thus, non-limiting. Thus, for this Office Action claim 2 will be broadly but reasonably interpreted to require a “valve”—whether one of the “first”/”second” valve or a new valve—connected to the fuel cell stack and a radiator, which appears consistent with the broader specification.
Claim 7 recites “a ninth operation of controlling the valve opening amount of the coolant control valve to open valves connected to the fuel cell stack and the radiator” in lines 4 and 5. It is unclear whether such 1) encompass or reference parent a) claim 2’s “valve connected to the fuel cell stack and a radiator” or b) parent claim 1’s “first”/”second” valve (at least one of which appears implicitly fluidically connected to at least the fuel cell stack, as discussed above) or 2) are meant to introduce a new valve(s).
Similar to above, it is further unclear whether the specification intends claim 7’s “valves” to each be separate from claim 2’s “valve” and claim 1’s “first”/”second” valve, particularly as the specification appears to only describe exemplary, non-limiting embodiments (and further in light of the drawing objections above). Thus, for this Office Action claim 7 will be broadly but reasonably interpreted to require at least two valves (including the ability for at least one valve to be the valve of claim 2 or “first”/”second valve” of claim 1), which appears consistent with the broader specification.
The remaining dependent claims fail to correct these deficiencies and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170062846 A1) (Kim) in view of Park et al. (US 20190288308 A1) (Park) and Na et al. (KR 102120004 B1, with machine translation) (Na).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a fuel cell system comprising (per annot. fig. 6 below) a coolant control valve (variable directional vale (VDV), labeled CCV) configured to switch a flowing path of a coolant through a first fluid passage passing through a fuel cell stack (through stack 105 through VDV’s internal path C-A; see 1FP) and a second fluid passage passing through a cathode oxygen depletion (COD) heater (through COD 115 via VDV’s internal path B-D; see 2FP) and a controller configured to control a valve opening amount of the coolant control valve connected to the first fluid passage and the second fluid passage (e.g., ¶ 0084), when shutdown is requested for the fuel cell stack (the controller, in being able to control the opening degree independent of time, would be configured to control the opening if shutdown were requested).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim further discloses the ability to stop the cold-start loop (¶ 0020) but appears to fail to specify that the controller is configured to perform a shutdown sequence.
Park teaches a fuel cell system (Title) including a controller configured to perform a shutdown sequence when the system is no longer in use (¶ 0012, fig. 1), such as when an applied electric device such as a vehicle is stopped (¶ 0006).
Park and Kim are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Kim’s controller to perform a shutdown sequence to predictably allow stoppage when the system is no longer needed to power an electric device, as taught by Park.
The limitation the “coolant control valve is formed by integrating a first valve … with a second valve” is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113), where the implied structure is simply two valves irreversibly coupled. Importantly, Kim recognizes that the VDV/coolant control valve should include multiple rotary ports to be able to switch the coolant’s flow path depending on the operating mode (e.g., ¶ 0017, figs. 5–9) but fails to explicitly disclose that this valve is formed by integrating a first valve to switch a flowing path of the coolant flowing into a pump with a second valve to switch a flowing path of the coolant pumped by the pump.
Na teaches a multi-path valve for a fuel cell system (Title), including axially integrated first and second rotary valves 110/120 (¶ 0012, figs.). Na teaches that this structure allows the coolant’s flow rate and direction control to be easily adjusted and enables the system to be lightweight and compact (¶ 0027, 0028).
Na is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely valves in fuel cell systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct Kim’s VDV/coolant control valve as two valves integrated into one with the reasonable expectation of allowing the coolant’s flow rate and direction control to be easily adjusted and enabling the system to be lightweight and compact, as taught by Na.
Such would render obvious a first valve to switch a flowing path of the coolant flowing into a pump integrated with a second valve to switch a flowing path of the coolant pumped by the pump because one valve could be used to switch the flow path into the pump (as in Kim’s VDV’s B-D internal path) while the other valve could be used to switch the flow path of the coolant pumped by the pump (as in C-A’s internal path, where pump circulates coolant around bolded loop, through COD 115, and into C-A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim discloses the fuel cell system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to terminate the shutdown of the fuel cell stack, when the shutdown sequence is terminated (in being able to perform the shutdown sequence to shut off the system, the controller would be configured to turn off/shut down the fuel cell stack, as in Park’s ¶ 0033).
Claim(s) 2 and 6–8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170062846 A1) (Kim) in view of Park et al. (US 20190288308 A1) (Park) and Na et al. (KR 102120004 B1, with machine translation) (Na), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Lichius et al. (WO 2019042631 A1, with machine translation) (Lichius).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim discloses the shutdown sequence includes a first operation of setting a revolution per minute (RPM) of the pump to a preset value (by controlling rotation speed of pump (Kim’s ¶ 0051) in, e.g., the operating mode of Kim’s fig. 3 so that the pump, in this mode, would be a “first pump”);
a second operation of controlling the valve opening amount of the coolant control valve to close a valve connected to the fuel cell stack and a radiator (by being able to control the VDV’s opening amount (as discussed in claim 1), Kim’s controller would necessarily be configured to control the coolant control valve to close a valve connected to fig. 3’s fuel cell stack and radiator 140, such as when all paths are blocked in Kim’s fig. 8).
Kim further discloses that 1) the system may be operated in other modes such as in fig. 2, where the pump circulates coolant through an outer loop including not only the fuel cell stack but auxiliary components like the radiator and, thus, through the cooling fan. 2) The radiator includes a radiator/cooling fan (¶ 0052). 3) The system is applied to a vehicle including an electric motor (¶ 0045), which the skilled artisan would realize would necessarily include some power electronic part such as an inverter to convert the fuel cell’s DC to AC to power the motor.
Thus, in being able to control the rotation speed of the pump in a given operating mode—and, thus, being able to set this value to a minimum such as zero when stopping the pump (implied in ¶ 0051)—Kim reasonably discloses a third operation of setting an RPM of a second pump, which supplies the coolant to a cooling fan, to a preset minimum value
However, in being unconcerned with the connection between the cold-start loop and the vehicle—and, thus, power electronic—Kim fails to explicitly disclose that, in the third operation, the second pump supplies the coolant to a power electronic part.
Lichius, in teaching a fuel cell system (Title), teaches that electric motors and power electronics are known to need to be cooled after operating within a high-temperature circuit (¶ 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Kim’s “second pump”, as part of the third operation in the shutdown sequence, to supply coolant to the implicitly present power electronic such as inverter to predictably cool this component and the vehicle’s motor after operating at high temperatures, as taught by Lichius.
Kim further discloses that the COD heater may be stopped (¶ 0063), necessitating that the COD heater may be turned on, but Kim appears to fail to specify that the shutdown sequence includes a fourth operation of setting a relay of the COD heater to be turned on.
Such is well known, however, as part of operating a COD. For example, Park further teaches that the fuel cell is connected to the COD heater via relay 105 (fig. 3, ¶ 0034), teaching that the controller gradually reduces the fuel cell’s voltage by turning on the COD relay when preparing for fuel-cell shutdown (¶ 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Kim’s controller, as part of the shutdown sequence, to perform a fourth operation of setting a relay of the COD heater to be turned on with the reasonable expectation of enabling control of the fuel cell’s voltage when preparing for fuel-cell shutdown, as taught by Park.
Kim further discloses a fifth operation of setting an operating mode of the COD heater to a shutdown mode (by being able to stop the COD heater, ¶ 0063).
Kim further discloses that the COD heater includes a temp. sensor that monitors overheating of an internal circuit such as the cold-start loop and may stop the COD heater to prevent overheating (¶ 0062, 0063). The skilled artisan would recognize that powering off the COD heater would necessitate cutting off voltage supply and, thus, would seem to realize that there would be no need to control min/max voltage and any corresponding protection measures when the COD is powered off.
Although Kim may not explicitly disclose such a sixth operation of deactivating an under voltage protection logic of the COD heater, it would have been obvious to configure Kim’s controller, as part of the shutdown sequence, to be able to perform such with the reasonable expectation of successfully shutting off the COD heater when power is no longer required.
Again, Kim discloses the ability to change the power into the COD heater by being able to stop/start the COD. Thus, the controller would further reasonably be configured, as part of the shutdown sequence, to perform a seventh operation of setting allowable power of the COD heater to a preset value (e.g., setting power to preset value such as zero when powering off).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim discloses the fuel cell system of claim 2 yet, while further disclosing controlling the temperature and delivery of the coolant based on conditions like sensed temperature of auxiliary components (Kim, ¶ 0044), modified Kim fails to explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to iterate the first operation to the seventh operation of the shutdown sequence, until a monitoring voltage of the fuel cell stack is equal to or less than a reference voltage.
Park further teaches, as part of the shutdown sequence, multiple voltage-comparison steps, where the fuel cell’s voltage is compared to a set voltage, and, if the cell’s voltage is found to be ≤ the reference voltage, the controller may perform additional shutdown measures such as shutting down the fuel cell (¶ 0055, 0057). Such appears to allow iterating the shutdown sequence steps (fig. 2), prevents overvoltage of the fuel cell (¶ 0055), and allows the system to be smoothly stopped (¶ 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Kim’s controller to iterate the first–seventh operations of the shutdown sequence depending on the fuel cell’s voltage—i.e., until a monitoring voltage of the fuel cell stack is ≤ a reference voltage—to prevent overvoltage of the stack as well as allow the system to be smoothly stopped, as suggested by Park.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim discloses the fuel cell system of claim 6.
As discussed above, Kim discloses the ability to control the pump’s rotation speed (¶ 0051). Likewise, Kim’s controller would reasonably be configured to control the rotary speed/RPM of the cooling fan within the radiator (¶ 0052) given that the controller further controls the radiator (¶ 0084). Also, as discussed in claim 2, depending on the operating mode, Kim’s pump could be considered a “first pump” when circulating coolant through the inner loop and a “second pump” when circulating coolant through the outer loop of fig. 6. Thus, in being able to control each of these components’ rotary speeds, modified Kim’s shutdown sequence would further include an eighth operation of setting RPMs of the pump, the second pump, and the cooling fan to zero upon shutting down the system.
Further, as Kim’s controller controls the opening amount of the VDV/coolant control valve independent of time (as addressed in claim 1), modified Kim’s shutdown sequence would reasonably further include a ninth operation of controlling the valve opening amount of the coolant control valve to open valves connected to the fuel cell stack (e.g., the C-A path connected to stack and the B-D path (fluidically connected to radiator) in Kim’s fig. 6; see Kim’s ¶ 0069 and 0070).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim discloses the fuel cell system of claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to perform the eighth operation and the ninth operation of the shutdown sequence, when the monitoring voltage of the fuel cell stack is equal to or less than the reference voltage, during the first operation to the seventh operation of the shutdown sequence (again, as Kim’s controller appears able to control the speeds/RPMs as well as opening amount of the VDV/coolant control valve independent of time, modified Kim’s controller would reasonably be configured to perform the eighth and ninth operations when the stack’s monitoring voltage is ≤ the reference voltage).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3–5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The invention relates to, inter alia, a fuel cell system comprising a coolant control valve configured to switch a flowing path of a coolant through a first fluid passage passing through a fuel cell stack and a second fluid passage passing through a COD heater, wherein (via claim 2) the system comprises a radiator, wherein
(claim 3) the coolant control valve includes: a first port connected to the second fluid passage passing through the COD heater configured to allow the coolant to flow into the first port; a second port connected to the first fluid passage passing through the fuel cell stack configured to allow the coolant to flow into the second port; a third port configured to discharge the coolant, which inflows through the first port, through the second fluid passage connected to the pump through a fifth fluid passage configured to serve as a by-pass line of the radiator; a fourth port configured to discharge the coolant, which inflows through the second port, through the first fluid passage connected to the pump through the fifth fluid passage; and a fifth port configured to discharge the coolant which inflows through the second port, through a fourth fluid passage passing through the radiator.
Kim et al. (US 20170062846 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 20190288308 A1) and Na et al. (KR 102120004 B1, with machine translation), in disclosing most of the limitations as set forth above, is considered the closest relevant prior art to claim 3.
However, Kim fails to disclose, teach, fairly suggest, or render obvious the above-noted limitations.
At best, Kim discloses four ports (see A–D in annot. fig. 6), where, depending on the operating mode, Kim could be considered to include “first” through “fifth” ports and first, second, fourth, and fifth fluid passages based on an exemplary configuration below (annot. fig. 6, v2).
PNG
media_image2.png
360
453
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, as seen above, the ports simply do not align with the respectively recited fluid passages. Rather, even if one considered Kim to include “five” ports based on different operating modes, Kim fails to disclose at least that the third port is configured to discharge the coolant, which inflows through the first port, through the second fluid passage connected to the pump through a fifth fluid passage configured to serve as a by-pass line of the radiator because the only possible “third port” would be B or D (see fig. 7), both of which only appear capable of/configured to route coolant between the first fluid passage (1FP) and second fluid passage (2FP), never between 1FP and the fifth fluid passage (5FP) based on their connections in figs. 6 and 7.
Further, Kim discloses that in the normal operating mode—the only time coolant appears configured to move through the “fifth fluid passage” (fig. 2)—the VDV/coolant control valve is blocked because Kim’s inventiveness is using the VDV only to improve fuel-cell cold starts (¶ 0022, 0023). Moreover, Kim’s other modes switching states within the VDV (see, e.g., fig. 9 routing A to D and C to B to flow in reverse direction through FC stack) fail to remedy this deficiency because they are still only connected to the first and second fluid passages versus the fourth and fifth (i.e., skilled artisan only envisioned using VDV/control valve for connection/flow through the inner circuit involving the COD). As such, there appears to be no suggestion to arbitrarily reroute these passages to configure each of the recited ports in the coolant control valve to be connected to route current through the respective fluid passages without frustrating Kim’s intended purpose and/or rendering the VDV inoperable.
Park, in merely rendering obvious the shutdown sequence, fails to remedy these deficiencies.
Na was used to teach the concept of an integrated coolant control valve, though even if one used Na as a primary reference, Na’s ports in fig. 13 (reproduced below) are also simply not aligned with the recited flow passages tied to the recited components (e.g., flowing through FC stack, COD, radiator, etc.).
PNG
media_image3.png
395
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rather, for example, Na may include a “first port” (203) with intake from the COD, but there is no indication of or other suggestion for a “third port” configured to discharge the inflowing coolant through a second fluid passage flowing through the pump through a fifth fluid passage acting as a radiator bypass. For the same reason, there is no indication of a “fourth port” configured to discharge the coolant, inflowing through a second port, through a first fluid passage connected to the pump through the fifth fluid passage. Taking claim 3 as a whole, there is simply no apparent reason or even ability to achieve all five ports respectively connected to and configured to route coolant through the recited first, second, fourth, and fifth fluid passages.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120122000 A1: system with three-way valve fluidically connected to COD and fuel cell stack.
KR 20220075466 A (with citation to English equivalent US 20220173415 A1): similar to Na (integrated coolant control valve with multiple ports for fuel cell system including COD).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST 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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights