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
Applicant’s amendments filed June 24, 2026 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended and claim 7 is new; support can be found at least in Figure 2. Claims 1-7 remain pending and have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that Miyajima does not teach “the joint tube includes an annular pocket formed between an outer peripheral wall of the hollow protrusion and an inner wall of the pipe.” Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below in view of Applicant’s amendments to the independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyajima et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2010/0190068 A1), hereinafter referred to as Miyajima, in view of Nishiyama et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20080226964 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nishiyama.
Regarding claim 1, Miyajima teaches a fuel cell system (“a fuel cell system”) (see e.g., paragraph [0036]). Miyajima teaches the fuel cell system 12 includes a fuel cell stack 10 (“a fuel cell stack”) (see e.g., paragraph [0036]). Miyajima teaches an off gas supply channel 40 for supplying the partially consumed oxygen-containing gas including the produced water (hereinafter referred to as the off gas) as humidified fluid from the fuel cell stack 10 is connected to the humidifier 36 (“a device into which an exhaust gas from the fuel cell stack flows”) (see e.g., paragraph [0039]). Miyajima teaches an electrically insulating pipe such as a resin pipe 112 connected to the resin coupling pipe 110 attached to the oxygen-containing gas outlet 98b of the end plate 62b of the fuel cell stack 10 that is connected to the supply channel 40 of the humidifier 36 (“a pipe connecting the fuel cell stack to the device”) (see e.g., paragraphs [0056] and [0058]). Miyajima teaches an end plate 62b of the fuel cell stack 10 has an oxygen-containing outlet (reactant gas outlet) 98b connected to connected to the oxygen-containing gas discharge passage 72b (“wherein the fuel cell stack includes a gas outlet from which the exhaust gas flows out”) (see e.g., Figure 1 and paragraph [0052]). Miyajima teaches the humidifier 36 is supplied off gas through the discharging of the supply channel 40 from the resin pipe 112 (“the device includes a gas receiving portion configured to receive the exhaust gas” and “the pipe extends from the gas outlet toward the gas receiving portion”) (see e.g., paragraph [0039]). Miyajima teaches a humidifier joint 101 connected to the end plate 62b by the resin pipe 112 (see e.g., paragraph [0057]) and connected to the humidifier 36 by the off gas supply channel 40 (“a joint tube is interposed between the pipe and the gas receiving portion” and “the joint tube has an upstream portion inserted into a downstream opening of the pipe”) (see e.g., paragraph [0058] and Figure 5). Miyajima teaches an O-ring 114 interposed between the resin pipe 112 and the humidifier joint 101 (“a seal member is interposed between the joint tube and the pipe and configured to seal a gap between the upstream portion of the joint tube and an inner wall of the pipe”) (see e.g., paragraph [0058] and Figure 5). Miyajima teaches the humidifier joint 101 has a protrusion (“the joint tube includes a hollow protrusion protruding upstream from the upstream portion in a flow direction of the exhaust gas and having an outer diameter smaller than an outer diameter of the upstream portion”) (see e.g., Annotated Figure 5), where it connects with the resin pipe 112, and from that protrusion, the diameter of the humidifier joint 101 increases to provide a gap between the resin pipe and humidifier joint 101 in a flow direction of the off gas (see e.g., Annotated Figure 5 and paragraph [0015]).
PNG
media_image1.png
640
933
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Miyajima does not explicitly teach the humidifier joint 101 is formed of an insulator.
However, Miyajima teaches a front view showing a resin (an insulator) pipe of the fuel cell stack that includes the humidifier 101 (see e.g., paragraph [0031] and Figure 9). Further, Miyajima teaches no electrically conductive path (short-circuiting through liquid) connecting the inside to the outside of the fuel cell stack 10 through the electrically conductive portion is formed (see e.g., paragraph [0096]) by having the off gas discharged from the oxygen-containing gas discharge passage to the resin pipe partially flow into the gap through the off gas outlet of the resin pipe (see e.g., paragraph [0094]) to become possible to suitably prevent short-circuiting through liquid from the fuel cell stack 140, and the desired power generation performance is secured (see e.g., paragraph [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would have selected a known material of an insulator such as resin for the humidifier joint of Miyajima not only because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and MPEP § 2144.07), but also in order to become possible to suitably prevent short-circuiting through liquid from the fuel cell stack 140, and the desired power generation performance is secured (see e.g., paragraph [0096]).
Miyajima does not explicitly teach the joint tube includes an annular pocket formed between an outer peripheral wall of the hollow protrusion and an inner wall of the pipe.
However, Nishiyama teaches a fuel cell system (see e.g., Abstract). Nishiyama teaches the fuel cell system includes a fluid pipe provided for the fuel cell stack and a fluid pipe provided for the humidifier are connected by a separate intermediate pipe (see e.g., paragraph [0013]). Nishiyama teaches the separator intermediate pipe 116 has a substantially cylindrical shape with a predetermined space S is formed between the inner surface of the pipe connectors 102a and the outer surface of the intermediate pipe 116 for absorbing the axial misalignment between the pipe connectors 102a, 112a by tilting of the intermediate pipe 116 (see e.g., paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the humidifier joint 101 of Miyajima to have a predetermined space S is formed between the inner surface of the pipe connectors 1and the outer surface of the intermediate pipe, as taught by Nishiyama, in order to absorb the axial misalignment between the pipe connectors by tilting of the intermediate pipe (see e.g., paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 2, Miyajima, as modified by Nishiyama, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Miyajima teaches the humidifier joint 101 has a protrusion (see e.g., Annotated Figure 5) and from that protrusion, the diameter of the humidifier joint 101 increases to provide a gap between the resin pipe and humidifier joint 101 in a flow direction of the off gas (“wherein an inner diameter of the joint tube is smallest at the hollow protrusion and increased toward a downstream side in the flow direction of the exhaust gas”) (see e.g., Annotated Figure 5 and paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 3, Miyajima, as modified by Nishiyama, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 2, as previously described.
Miyajima teaches a water drainage pipe unit 118 is provided at the outer lower end of the other end 112b of the resin pipe 112 (“a drain hole formed in the pipe and configured to discharge water flowing together with the exhaust gas”) (see e.g., paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Miyajima, as modified by Nishiyama, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 3, as previously described.
Miyajima teaches the reactant gas discharged from the reactant gas discharge passage to the reformer partially flows into the gap between the outer circumference of the electrically insulating pipe and the inner wall of the humidifier joint (see e.g., paragraph [0020]). Thus, it is possible to prevent liquid droplets from being retained at the reaction gas ejection port of the electrically insulating pipe, and prevent continuation of liquid through the retained water to the humidifier joint. Therefore, the decrease in diameter of the resin pipe 112 from one end 112a to the other end 112b is configured to guide water to the drain hole, meeting the claim limitation of “a guide groove formed in the inner wall of the pipe and configured to guide the water to the drain hole.”
Regarding claim 5, Miyajima, as modified by Nishiyama, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Miyajima does not explicitly teach the humidifier joint 101 is formed of an elastic body.
However, Miyajima teaches a front view showing a resin (an elastic body as described in Instant Specification paragraph [0036]) pipe of the fuel cell stack that includes the humidifier 101 (see e.g., paragraph [0031] and Figure 9). Further, Miyajima teaches the resin material allows for a gap S to be formed between the outer circumference of the resin pipe and the inner wall of the humidifier joint 101 such the off gas partially flows through the gap S (see e.g., paragraph [0093]) to prevent liquid droplets from being retained in the off gas supply channel 40, and prevent continuation of liquid through the retained water to the humidifier joint 101 (see e.g., paragraph [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would have selected a known material of an insulator such as resin for the humidifier joint of Miyajima not only because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and MPEP § 2144.07), but also in order to prevent liquid droplets from being retained in the off gas supply channel 40, and prevent continuation of liquid through the retained water to the humidifier joint 101 (see e.g., paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 6, Miyajima, as modified by Nishiyama, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Miyajima teaches an off gas supply channel 40 for supplying the partially consumed oxygen-containing gas including the produced water (hereinafter referred to as the off gas) as humidified fluid from the fuel cell stack 10 is connected to the humidifier 36 (“herein the device is a humidifier”) (see e.g., paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Miyajima, as modified by Nishiyama, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Miyajima, as modified by Nishiyama, teaches the opening of the pipe and the gas receiving portion are mutually spaced (“a downstream opening of the pipe and an upstream opening of the gas receiving portion are mutually spaced”) (see e.g., Miyajima Annotated Figure 5). Miyajima, as modified by Nishiyama, the separate intermediate pipe has O-rings 120a, 120b in annular grooves 118a, 118b inserted into the downstream opening of air supply pipe 38 and the upstream opening of the fuel cell stack (“the hollow protrusion of the joint tube is inserted into the downstream opening of the pipe and a downstream end of the joint tube is inserted into the upstream opening of the gas receiving portion”) (see e.g., Nishiyama Figure 7 and paragraph [0047]) for absorbing the axial misalignment between the pipe connectors 102a, 112a by tilting of the intermediate pipe 116 (see e.g., Nishiyama paragraph [0047]).
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 Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights