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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 07/06/2026:
Claims 1-6 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-5 stand withdrawn
The previous prior art-based rejection have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kemmer et al (US 20230231159 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kemmer discloses a fuel cell system comprising:
a fuel cell (fuel cell stack 190 in Figs. 1-2; see entire disclosure and especially P49-50);
a supercharger configured to increase a pressure of intake air of the fuel cell by rotating a turbine with an exhaust of the fuel cell (second compressor 150 is mechanically coupled to turbine 155 in Figs. 1-2; discharged cathode gas flow is passed to turbine 155 to operate the turbine; see entire disclosure and especially P49, 55); and
a heat pump apparatus configured to absorb heat from a predetermined heat source to increase a temperature of the exhaust supplied to the turbine, wherein the heat pump apparatus comprises: a fifth heat exchanger configured to absorb heat from a refrigerant of a heat exchange system (the refrigerant of a heat exchange system is the coolant of the cooling circuit being pumped by coolant pump 165; the fourth heat exchanger 140 dissipates heat from the coolant to lower the temperature of the coolant, therefore, heat is absorbed from the coolant; see entire disclosure and especially P57, 61, 63 and Figs. 1-2); a sixth heat exchanger configured to cause the refrigerant to absorb heat (the first heat exchanger 110 absorbs heat from the compressed cathode gas flow and couples the heat to the coolant; see entire disclosure and especially P51); and a second heat exchanger configured to cause the exhaust to absorb heat (third heat exchanger 130 increases the temperature of the discharged cathode gas flow for effective operation of the turbine 155; see entire disclosure and especially P55).
Regarding the limitation “a heat exchange system for cooling refrigeration equipment of a refrigerated vehicle”:
The limitation “for cooling refrigeration equipment of a refrigerated vehicle” is an intended-use of the heat exchange system.
Kemmer teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus of claim 1. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemmer et al (US 20230231159 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kemmer discloses their system is for supplying a mobile platform with electrical energy, and that the mobile platform can be an at least partially automated vehicle or vehicle having a driver assistance program (see entire disclosure and especially P35-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have equipped the fuel cell system of Kemmer onto an at least partially automated vehicle or vehicle having a driver assistance program, given Kemmer discloses their system can be used for supplying an at least partially automated vehicle or vehicle having a driver assistance program with electrical energy.
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 Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights