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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-6, 8, 11 and 14) in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that in Group II, claims 11-15, are part of Group I. Examiner agrees. The Examiner inadvertently listed claims 11-15 into Group I however, further in the Restriction Requirement they are listed under Group I and categorized as species. Further, Applicant elects species (i) (claim 6) of Category A, species (i) (claim 11) of Category B, and species (i) (claim 14) of Category C. Applicant further argue that the restriction between claims 6-7 is improper because both describe a radial direction of flow. Examiner respectfully disagree. The radial element in claim 6 corresponds to the arrangement of the introduction points (42) in the outer wall of the tube while in claim 7 corresponds to the flow of gas. In claim 7, the introduction points (42) are arranged on the mixing element while in claim 6, they are arranged in the tube section.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7, 9-10, 12-13 and 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/26/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application, of claims 7, 9-10, 12-13 and 15 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11 and 14 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuma et al. (JP2005011641A).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of JP2005011641A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Fukuma teaches a device for determining the hydrogen concentration of an exhaust gas in an exhaust gas line of a fuel cell system (page 1, lines 10-21), the device comprising a sensor (i.e., detector) arrange in a tube section (page 4, lines 55-60; page 5, lines 1-10); wherein the tube section (i.e., container) (6) has an inflow opening (i.e., inlet portion) (8) (page 2, lines 33-44) and an outflow opening (i.e., discharge portion 23) (page 4, lines 25-35), the device also comprising a mixing element (i.e., hydrogen chamber) (15) configured to mix a fluid which flows through the inflow opening such that different components of the exhaust gas are distributed homogeneously (i.e., gases merge and further mix) (page 4, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 2, Fukuma teaches the device is characterized in that the tube section comprises a terminal (i.e., inlet) (20) for a purge line pipe (i.e., cathode off gas) to be fed into the tube section via the terminal (page 3, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 3, Fukuma teaches the device is characterized in that the terminal (20) is arranged between the inflow opening (8) and the mixing element (15) (as shown in figures 3-4).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Fukuma teaches the sensor (i.e., detector) is fixed to an outer wall of the tube section (page 4, lines 58-60; page 5, lines 1-5).
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) 4-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuma et al. (JP2005011641A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sampath et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0044103).
Regarding claim 4, Fukama teaches the device as described above in claim 1 including the mixing element (15).
Fukama does not teach the mixing element is formed by a spiral structure.
Sampath, directed to a mixing element (i.e., mixing pipe) (18) (abstract) (paragraph [0083]), teaches the mixing element receive an exhaust gas from an exhaust gas line (i.e., an engine) (paragraph [0006]). Further, Sampath teaches the mixing element has a tube section (i.e., tubular portion) and several introduction points (i.e., plurality of openings) (paragraph [0083]-[0084]). Further, Sampath teaches the mixing element is formed by a spiral structure (i.e., blades) (paragraph [0088]). Sampath teaches such configuration induce turbulence and facilitate mixing of the exhaust gas (paragraph [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fukama to include the mixing element formed by a spiral structure as taught by Sampath, in order to induce turbulence and facilitate mixing of the exhaust gas.
Regarding claim 5, Fukama teaches the purge gas does not flow through the terminal selectively but rather at several introduction points (i.e., conduction ports) (22a-22f) (i.e., for introducing cathode off gas) (page 3, lines 45-60).
Regarding claim 6, Fukama teaches the introduction point are radially distributed over an outer wall of the tube section (as shown in figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 11, Fukama teaches the device as described above in claim 1 including the mixing element (15).
Fukama does not teach the mixing element is formed by a spiral structure.
Sampath, directed to a mixing element (i.e., mixing pipe) (18) (abstract) (paragraph [0083]), teaches the mixing element receive an exhaust gas from an exhaust gas line (i.e., an engine) (paragraph [0006]). Further, Sampath teaches the mixing element has a tube section (i.e., tubular portion) and several introduction points (i.e., plurality of openings) (paragraph [0083]-[0084]). Further, Sampath teaches the mixing element is formed by a spiral structure (i.e., blades) (paragraph [0088]). Sampath teaches such configuration induce turbulence and facilitate mixing of the exhaust gas (paragraph [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fukama to include the mixing element formed by a spiral structure as taught by Sampath, in order to induce turbulence and facilitate mixing of the exhaust gas.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Inoue et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0265646). Inoue teaches a device (i.e., diluter) for mixing an exhaust gas and determine the concentration of the exhaust gas (paragraph [0050]).
Konrad et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0228989). Konrad teaches a process for determining concentration of an exhaust gas and a mixing element (i.e., chamber) (claim 11).
Ishiguro et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0092812). Ishiguro teaches a device for processing an exhaust gas and a mixing element (container) (25) (paragraph [0044]) (see figures 2a-12b).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723