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
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/08/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a search burden and the groups comprise a common inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because the indication of a common inventive concept is related only to PCT fillings and, therefore, not relevant. There is significant difference in scope between the product of Group I and the method of Group II because the product requires a fuel system that is structurally capable of performing the claimed functions whereas the method requires the functions to be explicitly taught. Therefore, a search burden exists for at least one of the reasons: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses, or employing different search queries); the prior art application to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al. (US-20150280260-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches:
A fuel cell system, comprising (a fuel cell system 100, see [0012] and Fig. 1):
a fuel cell stack (a fuel cell stack 10, see [0012] and Fig. 1 );
an air supply line connected to an inlet of an air electrode of the fuel cell stack to supply air thereto (see annotated Fig. 1);
an integrated discharge line connected to an outlet of a hydrogen electrode of the fuel cell stack and configured to discharge a waste product to outside thereof ( see annotated Fig. 1);
an integrated discharge valve provided in the integrated discharge line (drain-purge valve 60, see [0038] and Fig. 1);
a connection line to connect the integrated discharge valve and the air supply line (see annotated Fig. 1);
and a controller configured to control the integrated discharge valve to discharge the waste product to the outside through the integrated discharge line (controller 80 controls the drain-purge valve 60 to adjust draining of condensate water and purging of the hydrogen, [0039] )
Lee does not explicitly teach:
or to supply the waste product to the air supply line through the connection line (the drain-purge valve 60 is controlled by the controller 80 (see [0039]) and the connection line is shown to be structurally capable of “supply[ing] the waste product to the air supply line through the connection line” in annotated Fig. 1 below).
In the alternative, assuming arguendo, that Lee does not anticipate the following:
or to supply the waste product to the air supply line through the connection line
Lee’s Fig. 1 includes an arrow from the drain-purge valve to the humidifier indicating that the configuration is structurally capable of releasing water/vapor to the air supply line. Lee further teaches that it is appropriate to adjust the amount of water in the fuel cell stack because humification helps reaction efficiency, while too much can impede contact with the catalyst and reaction gases, thereby, reducing the reaction efficiency, see [0009]. Additionally, Lee teach the controller controls the function of the valve, see [0039].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to automated the control of the flow path of water/vapor to the humidifier from the drain-purge valve to optimize the humidity of the fuel cell and, thereby, increase reaction efficiency.
PNG
media_image1.png
838
1338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Lee discloses:
wherein the waste product from the fuel cell stack is hydrogen gas remaining after a reaction at the hydrogen electrode of the fuel cell stack or water condensate produced in the fuel cell stack (“the controller 80 may drain the condensate water by opening the drain-purge valve 60 and purge the hydrogen by keeping the same drain-purge valve 60 open once the draining of the condensate water ends for a predetermined time,” see [0039]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee discloses:
wherein when discharging the waste product, the water condensate is discharged first, and then the hydrogen gas is discharged (“the controller 80 may drain the condensate water by opening the drain-purge valve 60 and purge the hydrogen by keeping the same drain-purge valve 60 open once the draining of the condensate water ends for a predetermined time,” see [0039]).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the fuel cell stack is generating power when the water condensate or the hydrogen gas is discharged, and when the controller concludes that the fuel cell stack is generating power, configured to determine a humidification state of the fuel cell stack to control the integrated discharge valve (the controller controls the draining-drain purge valve to drain condensed water, see [0039]. Additionally, “in connection with the draining of the condensate water, the controller 80 may calculate an average output current of the fuel cell stack to calculate a production speed of the condensate water,” see [0040]).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to control the integrated discharge valve to discharge the hydrogen gas to the outside through the integrated discharge line when the hydrogen gas is discharged (“the controller 80 may drain the condensate water by opening the drain-purge valve 60 and purge the hydrogen by keeping the same drain-purge valve 60 open once the draining of the condensate water ends for a predetermined time,” see [0039]).
Regarding Claim 8 and Claim 9, Lee teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to control the integrated discharge valve to discharge the water condensate to the outside through the integrated discharge line when the water condensate is discharged as humidification of the fuel cell stack is not required (Per Claim 8).
wherein the controller is configured to control the integrated discharge valve to supply the water condensate to the air supply line through the connection line when the water condensate is discharged as humidification of the fuel cell stack is required (Per Claim 9).
It is the Examiner’s position that the system of Lee is structurally capable of performing the above claimed functions. The drain-purge valve 60 is controlled by the controller 80 (see [0039]). Additionally, the connection line is shown to be structurally capable of “supply[ing] the water condensate to the air supply line” in annotated Fig. 1 above in the claimed state of when the humidification is required and when humidification is not required.
In the alternative, assuming arguendo, that Lee does not anticipate the following:
wherein the controller is configured to control the integrated discharge valve to discharge the water condensate to the outside through the integrated discharge line when the water condensate is discharged as humidification of the fuel cell stack is not required (Per Claim 8).
wherein the controller is configured to control the integrated discharge valve to supply the water condensate to the air supply line through the connection line when the water condensate is discharged as humidification of the fuel cell stack is required (Per Claim 9).
Lee’s Fig. 1 includes an arrow from the drain-purge valve to the humidifier indicating that the configuration is structurally capable of releasing water/vapor to the air supply line. Lee further teaches that it is appropriate to adjust the amount of water in the fuel cell stack because humification helps reaction efficiency, while too much can impede contact with the catalyst and reaction gases, thereby, reducing the reaction efficiency, see [0009]. Additionally, Lee teach the controller controls the function of the valve, see [0039].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to control of the flow path of water/vapor to the humidifier to be open when humification is required and closed when the humification is not required from the drain-purge valve to optimize the humidity of the fuel cell and, thereby, increase reaction efficiency.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to control the integrated discharge valve to open the connection line when a discharge of the waste product is completed.
It is the Examiner’s position that the system of Lee is structurally capable of performing the above claimed functions. The drain-purge valve 60 is controlled by the controller 80 (see [0039]). Additionally, the connection line is shown to be structurally capable of “control[ing] the integrated discharge valve to open the connection line when a discharge of the waste product is completed” in annotated Fig. 1.
In the alternative, assuming arguendo, that Lee does not anticipate the following:
wherein the controller is configured to control the integrated discharge valve to open the connection line when a discharge of the waste product is completed.
Lee’s Fig. 1 includes an arrow from the drain-purge valve to the humidifier indicating that the configuration is structurally capable of releasing water/vapor to the air supply line. Lee further teaches that it is appropriate to adjust the amount of water in the fuel cell stack because humification helps reaction efficiency, while too much can impede contact with the catalyst and reaction gases, thereby, reducing the reaction efficiency, see [0009]. Additionally, Lee teach the controller controls the function of the valve, see [0039].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to control of the flow path of water/vapor to the humidifier to be open when humification is required and closed when the humification is not required from the drain-purge valve to optimize the humidity of the fuel cell and, thereby, increase reaction efficiency.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20150280260-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suga (US-20050227137-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee is silent to the structure of the drain-purge valve and therefore does not teach:
wherein the integrated discharge valve is a three-way valve to move the waste product along the integrated discharge line or along the connection line.
However, as shown is annotated Lee Fig. 1 the drain valve connects the claimed three pathways. To solve the same problem of designing a fuel cell system (see Abstract), Suga teaches it is successful and convention to use a three-way valve to connect three pathways, see Fig. 1, V1.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success having the drain-purge valve be a three-way valve.
Claim(s) 7 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20150280260-A1) as applied to claim 1 and 3-5 above, and further in view of Koiwa et al. (US-20210305599-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee is silent to the following:
wherein the controller is configured to control the integrated discharge valve to discharge the water condensate to the outside through the integrated discharge line when the water condensate is discharged as power generation of the fuel cell stack is stopped.
To solve the same problem of designing a fuel cell system (see Abstract), Koiwa teaches when the power generation of the fuel cell is stopped it is advantageous to drain water via a drain valve 60a in order to evacuate water accumulate in the system under freezing conditions to prevent the necessity of a heater, see [0054], [0074], and [0079]. The lack of heater reduces manufacturing costs and power consumption, see [0054], [0074], and [0079].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the controller of Lee open the discharge valve to evacuate the water under freezing conditions when the power of the fuel cell is stopped, as taught by Koiwa, to prevent the necessity of a heat which reduces manufacturing costs and power consumption.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee with the following modification of Koiwa teaches:
further including: a humidifier provided in the air supply line (see annotated Fig. 1 above);
Lee does not teach:
a bypass valve provided at an upstream point of the humidifier based on an air flow in the air supply line; and a bypass line branching through the bypass valve to discharge air to the outside thereof, wherein the controller is configured to control the integrated discharge valve and the bypass valve simultaneously.
To solve the same problem of designing a fuel cell system (see Abstract), Koiwa teaches disposing a bypass channel 66 with a flow control valve 80 in a position upstream of a humidifier 74 which connects the gas supply channel 62 to the gas discharge channel, see Fig. 1, [0084], and [0088]. The flow control valve is controlled by a ECU (Electronic Control Unit: control unit) 90, see [0058]. Koiwa further teaches the oxygen gas bypass channel 66 allows for the oxygen containing gas to be rerouted to the discharge channel during an operation-stopped state, see [0058] and Fig. 1. Additionally, Lee both Koiwa teach a single controller for the fuel cell system which controls the valves, see Lee-[0003] and Koiwa-[0040]
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disposed an oxygen-containing gas bypass channel 66 with a flow control valve 80 in the air supply line and have the function of the valve be controlled by the controller 80 of Lee (i.e. controller is configured to control the integrated discharge valve and the bypass valve simultaneously) to allow for the oxygen containing gas to be rerouted to the discharge channel during an operation-stopped state.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses:
wherein the humidifier is connected to the connection line (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Lee in view of Koiwa teaches:
wherein the bypass valve is a valve with an adjustable opening to the air supply line and the bypass line (“A flow control valve 80 is provided on the oxygen-containing gas bypass channel 66 so as to control the flow rate of the oxygen-containing gas flowing from the oxygen-containing gas supply channel 62 into the oxygen-containing gas discharge channel 64,” Koiwa-[0037] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Lee in view of Koiwa teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to control the bypass valve to open only the bypass line when power generation of the fuel cell stack is stopped (“the ECU 90 outputs a valve-opening command to the flow control valve 80 that is closed in the operation-stopped state. The flow control valve 80 is then opened with 100% opening between time t1 and time t2 (see dotted line in FIG. 4), so that a large amount of oxygen-containing gas can flow into the oxygen-containing gas bypass channel 66,” see Koiwa-[0058] and Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Lee is silent toward:
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether to prevent freezing of water condensate when humidification of the fuel cell stack is not required, to ensure that the air supply line and the bypass line are open when the controller concludes that the preventing the water condensate from freezing is necessary,
and to control the bypass valve to open only the air supply line when the controller concludes that the preventing the water condensate from freezing is unnecessary.
To solve the same problem of designing a fuel cell system (see Abstract), Koiwa teaches the ECU controller determines if “the temperature in the surroundings of the fuel cell system 10 is low (e.g. below the freezing point) based on the temperature information detected by the temperature sensor 84” and if the temperature is low initiating a purge valve scavenging process, [0042]. The purge valve scavenging process includes opening the flow control valve 80 of the bypass channel 66. When this process is complete (i.e., the controller concludes that the preventing the water condensate from freezing is unnecessary) the flow control valve 80 of the bypass channel 66 is closed, see Fig. 4. Koiwa teaches when the power generation of the fuel cell is stopped it is advantageous to drain water via a drain valve 60a in order to evacuate water accumulate in the system under freezing conditions to prevent the necessity of a heater, see [0054], [0074], and [0079]. The lack of heater reduces manufacturing costs and power consumption, see [0054], [0074], and [0079].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have adopted the purge valve scavenging process taught by Koiwa into modified Lee to prevent the necessity of a heat which reduces manufacturing costs and power consumption.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Lee teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to allow only the air supply line to be opened when humidification of the fuel cell stack is required (when the air supply line is open the air traverses a humidifier, see annotated Lee-Fig. 1 above),
Modified Lee is silent toward:
and to control the bypass valve to open the air supply line and the bypass line when hydrogen gas is discharged from the integrated discharge valve.
To solve the same problem of designing a fuel cell system (see Abstract), Koiwa teaches the ECU controller controls the valves during a purge valve scavenging process, [0042], Fig. 4. The purge valve scavenging process suitably includes opening the flow control valve 80 of the bypass channel 66 when the drain valve is open, [0071]. After time point t5a, the bypass channel 66 is closed (i.e., the bypass valve to open only the air supply line) while the drain valve remains open, see Fig. 4, t5, t5a, t6. Kiowa indicates the addition of t5a time point allows the “fuel gas discharged in the drain discharge process can be diluted effectively,” see [0071]. Koiwa further teaches when the power generation of the fuel cell is stopped it is advantageous to drain water via a drain valve 60a in order to evacuate water accumulate in the system under freezing conditions to prevent the necessity of a heater, see [0054], [0074], and [0079]. The lack of heater reduces manufacturing costs and power consumption, see [0054], [0074], and [0079].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have adopted the purge valve scavenging process taught by Koiwa into modified Lee to prevent the necessity of a heat which reduces manufacturing costs and power consumption and to include the t5a time point shown in Koiwa Fig. 4 to allow for fuel gas discharged in the drain discharge process can be diluted effectively.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Lee is silent toward:
wherein the controller is configured to control the bypass valve to open only the air supply line when a discharge of the waste product is completed.
To solve the same problem of designing a fuel cell system (see Abstract), Koiwa teaches the ECU controller determines if “the temperature in the surroundings of the fuel cell system 10 is low (e.g. below the freezing point) based on the temperature information detected by the temperature sensor 84” and if the temperature is low initiating a purge valve scavenging process, [0042]. The purge valve scavenging process includes opening the flow control valve 80 of the bypass channel 66. When this process is complete (i.e., when a discharge of the waste product is completed) the flow control valve 80 of the bypass channel 66 is closed (i.e., the bypass valve to open only the air supply line), see Fig. 4, t6. Koiwa teaches when the power generation of the fuel cell is stopped it is advantageous to drain water via a drain valve 60a in order to evacuate water accumulate in the system under freezing conditions to prevent the necessity of a heater, see [0054], [0074], and [0079]. The lack of heater reduces manufacturing costs and power consumption, see [0054], [0074], and [0079].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have adopted the purge valve scavenging process taught by Koiwa into modified Lee to prevent the necessity of a heat which reduces manufacturing costs and power consumption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights