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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show hot water supply device 280 within the stationary fuel cell system 200 in Fig. 1 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Furthermore, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 21, 22, 31, 41, and 51 as shown in Fig. 5.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: "the first reciprocating from" (Claim 3, Line 5) should read "the first reciprocating circulation water pipe from". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore et. al. (US 6107691) in view of Bogdan (US 5125691).
Regarding claim 1, Gore et. al. teaches: A multi-cylindrical structure supply pipe comprising: at least three pipes that couple a stationary fuel cell system that is stationary and an in-vehicle fuel cell system mounted on a fuel cell vehicle (The prior art includes a triple hose grouping capable of connecting a fuel cell powered vehicle and stationary system for supply of fuel, electricity and water. The triple hose grouping includes an electric line, fuel cell fuel line and a hose for exhaust of the fuel cell which can include water or water vapor [Fig. 10 and Col. 9, Lines 34-42]), wherein the at least three concentric pipes comprise: a hydrogen supply pipe configured to allow hydrogen gas to flow through the hydrogen supply pipe (The triple hose includes a fuel line for the fuel cell [Fig. 19 and Col. 9, Lines 37 and 38] where the fuel for the fuel cell was identified as “Natural gas, hydrogen, or other light gaseous hydrocarbon bearing fuels” [Col. 1, Lines 38-40]), a liquid circulation pipe surrounding an outer periphery of the hydrogen supply pipe, the liquid circulation pipe being configured to allow liquid to flow through the liquid circulation pipe outside the hydrogen supply pipe (The triple hose, as stated, includes an exhaust hose positioned outside of the fuel supply line which is utilized for transporting liquid, such as water or water vapor [Fig. 10 and Col. 9, Lines 40-42]), and an electric wire pipe surrounding an outer periphery of the liquid circulation pipe, the electric wire pipe being provided with one or more electric wires outside the liquid circulation pipe (The triple hose, as stated, includes an electric line positioned outside of the exhaust hose [Fig. 10 and Col. 9, Lines 38 and 39]).
Gore et. al. fails to teach the use of concentric pipes.
Bogdan teaches a pipeline for fluid transfer using a plurality of concentric passageways (Fig. 1 and Col. 1, Lines 46-51).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Gore et. al. and Bogdan so that the triple hose piping structure could be substituted with a pipe assembly in a concentric orientation as it would yield similar and predictable result of transporting a medium from one location to another (Col. 1, Lines 6-9).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore et. al. (US 6107691) in view of Bogdan (US 5125691) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizutani (US 20240317979).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gore et. al. and Bogdan teach the limitations of claim 1 and fail to disclose the further limitations of claim 2.
Mizutani teaches: The multi-cylindrical structure supply pipe according to claim 1, further comprising a first reinforcement layer made of a first metal material (The reinforcement layer for a hydraulic or transport hose [Para. 132] utilizes a single or multiple layers which can be made of a metal material [Para. 124-125]), the first reinforcement layer being provided between the hydrogen supply pipe and the liquid circulation pipe (Fig. 1 shows the use of a reinforcing layer between two concentric hoses [Para. 128] and Fig. 2 shows another embodiment which includes more than two concentric hoses utilizing more than two reinforcing layers made of the metal material [Para. 130]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Gore et. al., Bogdan, and Mizutani to improve the combination of Gore et. al. and Bogdan with the metal reinforcing layer for a transport conduit of Mizutani as the reinforcing layers are known to be used within such conduits in the art (Para. 6, Lines 3-4), where the inclusion of the metal reinforcing layer adds support to the hose/conduit while maintaining its flexibility.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore et. al. (US 6107691), Bogdan (US 5125691), and Mizutani (US 20240317979) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Epstein et. al. (US 20150054460).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gore et. al., Bogdan, and Mizutani teach all limitations of claims 1 and 2 but fail to teach the first and second reciprocating circulation water pipe limitations of claim 3.
Epstein et. al. teaches: a first reciprocating circulation water pipe configured to allow the liquid to flow through the first reciprocating from the fuel cell system to the fuel cell vehicle (The piping configuration including a fluid supply line 68b from the stationary system to the vehicle system [Fig. 1 and Para. 32, Lines 13-15]), and a second reciprocating circulation water pipe provided concentrically with respect to the first reciprocating circulation water pipe, the second reciprocating circulation water pipe being configured to allow the liquid to flow through the second reciprocating circulation water pipe from the fuel cell vehicle to the stationary fuel cell system (The piping configuration also includes a fluid return line 68c to allow the fluid to be transferred from the vehicle system to the stationary system [Fig. 1 and Para. 33, Lines 6-11]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Gore et. al., Bogdan, Mizutani, and Epstein et. al. to utilize the combination of Gore et. al., Bogdan, and Mizutani with the fluid recirculating system of Epstein et. al. to allow for the fluid being passed between the stationary system and vehicle system to be thermally conditioned and reused (Para. 33, Lines 8-15). Furthermore, as the described combination for claims 1 and 2 encompasses the use of concentric pipes for the application, the addition and specific orientation of the reciprocating liquid circulation pipes would have been obvious as it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts, i.e a concentric pipe, and location/rearranging parts, i.e the first reciprocating liquid circulation pipe surrounding the hydrogen pipe and the second reciprocating liquid circulation pipe surrounding the first, involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 and In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore et. al. (US 6107691), Bogdan (US 5125691), Mizutani (US 20240317979), and Epstein et. al. (US 2015054460) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Callahan et. al. (US 10982797).
Regarding claim 4, Gore et. al., Bogdan, Mizutani, and Epstein et. al. teaches all limitations claim 3 and the use of a second reinforcement layer between two layers within a multi-cylindrical structure (Fig. 2 shows another embodiment which includes more than two concentric hoses utilizing more than two reinforcing layers made of the metal material [Para. 130]).
However, they fail to teach the use of a second metal material.
Callahan et. al. teaches two metal layers made of different metal materials for reinforcement, where the first layer is made of aluminum and the second layer made of steel (Fig. 5 and Col. 14, Lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 5, the previously disclosed combination fails to teach the second metal material having an electric resistance higher than the electric resistance of the first metal material.
As with Callahan et. al.’s disclosure, the prior art illustrates the use of a second metal material made of a different material that has a higher electric resistance than the first metal material (layer 36 made of steel [Col. 11, Lines 63-67] and layer 40 made of aluminum [Col. 14, Lines 5-6]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Callahan et. al. in the combination of Gore et. al., Bogdan, Mizutani, and Epstein et. al. to incorporate the two layers made of metal material to improve the strength of a pipe segment (Col. 12, Lines 49-56) which utilizes a layer that is less susceptible to corrosion and second layer made of some steel (Col. 11, Lines 63-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ikemoto et. al. (US 6745796) teaches a hydrogen fuel transporting hose with at least one reinforcing layer (Col. 2, Lines 25-30).
Kobres (US 4014369) teaches a pipeline system for transporting gas or liquid in a triple pipe where the third annular has insulation (Fig. 2 and Col. 30-39).
Reber et. al. (US 20190217707) teaches concentric pipes with 2 fluid lines and electric charging cables (Para. 57 and Fig. 3).
Bergweiler et. al. (US 20170355245) teaches recirculation through hose for fluid/coolant system (Para. 21, Lines 10-17) that can be used for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (Para. 20, Lines 1-3).
Salama et. al. (US 20100313987) teaches a pipe-in-pipe with 2 annular spaces for a liquefied natural gas pipeline and in another embodiment, third pipe which could be utilized to create a pipe-in-pipe-in-pipe assembly (Para. 14, Lines 3-11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DENNIS LEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. If Craig Schneider cannot be reached, please contact Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JOSHUA D LEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3753