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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “and which comprises a fuel gas line, a recirculation line, and an outflow line” is unclear as to what object comprises the recited limitations. Suggested correction is “the at least one gas jet pump comprising a fuel gas line, a recirculation line and an outflow line”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it recites the limitation "the fuel gas" in line 3 of said claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “at least one nozzle”, and the claim also recites “a plurality of nozzles” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 is rejected for being indefinite because recitation “a plurality of nozzles”, as it is unclear if said “plurality of nozzles” further limits the “at least one nozzle” (as recited in lines 2-3) or referring to different nozzles.
Claim 1 is rejected for being indefinite for reciting “one of the nozzles” as it is not clear if said “one of the nozzles” is referring to one of the nozzles of the “at least one nozzle” (as recited in lines 2-3) or to one of the nozzles of the “plurality of nozzles” (as recited in line 7).
Claim 1 rejected for being indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by recitation that one of the nozzles “is selectively useable, respectively”. It is not clear what it meant by being “selectively useable” or with respect to what.
Claims 6 and 10-11 recite the limitation “outflow line” in line 5 and line 3 of said claims respectively. It is unclear if it is the same outflow line as referenced in line 4 of claim 1 or another outflow line. For the purpose of this office action, claims 6, 10 and 11 have been interpreted as reading “the outflow line”.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it recites a relative term “approximately” in line 3 of said claim. The term “approximately” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The parameter “angle” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “approximately” as it is not clear what the lower or upper limit of the angle is.
Additionally, dependent claims 4-15 are rejected as a result of their dependence on indefinite claim 1, as they include all the limitations of claim 1 and they do not resolve the issues identified in rejections set forth above.
Further, dependent claims 7 and 14-15 are rejected as a result of their dependence on indefinite claim 6, as they include all the limitations of claim 6 and they do not resolve the issues identified in rejections set forth above.
Further, dependent claim 15 is rejected as a result of its dependency on indefinite claim 7, as it includes all the limitations of claim 7 and does not resolve the issues identified in rejections as set forth above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 8 and 12-15 merely recited how claimed anode circuit is intended to be used and as such do not further limit the claimed anode circuit. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP 2114(II).
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a(1)/a(2) as being anticipated by Uozumi (US 2005/0130008 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Uozumi discloses an anode circuit (fuel cell system 100, see [0021] and Figure 1 & 9A, where the pump and lines recirculating anode exhaust gas from the fuel cell outlet through the pump and into the fuel cell inlet read on the anode circuit) for a fuel cell (fuel cell 1, see [0021] and Figure 1) having at least one gas jet pump (ejector unit 50C, see Figure 9A ); for recirculating anode exhaust gas (see Fig. 1 and [0025], [0042] which describes hydrogen from fuel cell exhaust being recirculated via ejectors 5, 7 and 9 back to the fuel cell, where ejector unit 50C of Figure 9A comprises of ejector sections 57a, 59a & 61a which are equivalent to ejectors 5, 7 and 9 of Figure 1); comprising at least one nozzle (nozzles 63a, 65a and 67a; Figure 9A), through which the fuel gas (hydrogen, see [0022]) is able to flow as a fuel gas flow (flow rate of hydrogen, see [0022] ) and which comprises a fuel gas line (hydrogen inlet port passages 11 and 17, see [0023] and Figure 1, which is equivalent to 49a of Figure 9A), a recirculation line (recirculation branch flow passages 35, 37, 39 and 41 of Figure 1, which is equivalent to 53a of Figure 9A) and an outflow line (common flow passage 23, 29, see [0024] and Figure 1 which is equivalent to 51a of Figure 9A) wherein a plurality of nozzles (nozzles 63a, 65a and 67a; see Figure 9A) having different geometries are arranged in a nozzle body (valve body 47a [0066], where nozzles have different specifications i.e. diameters, see [0070] and Figure 9A ) which is movable relative to the fuel gas line (hydrogen inlet port passages 11 and 17, see [0023] & Figure 1, which is equivalent to 49a of Figure 9A, where valve body 47a is available for sliding movement in the vertical direction with respect to a central axis and rotationally movable, see [0067-0070] ) such that one of the nozzles is selectively useable, respectively (nozzles 63a, 65a and 67a in ejector sections 57a, 59a & 61a are selected through a sliding and rotational movement of valve body 47a; see [0070] and Figure 9A).
Regarding Claim 4, Uozumi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses:
wherein the fuel gas line (49a which is equivalent to 11 & 17 in Figure 1) and outflow line (51a which is equivalent to 23 in Figure 1) are configured to be aligned (see Figures 9A & 9B).
Regarding Claims 6, 7 and 10, Uozumi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses:
wherein the recirculation line (35, 41 and 53a) is formed at an angle to the fuel gas line or outflow line (51a, 23 and 29) (as required by claims 6 and 10) and wherein the angle is approximately 90° (as required by claim 7) (Uozumi discloses recirculation line (53a) formed at a 90° angle to the fuel gas line (49a) (see annotated Figure 9A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
591
785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 8, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a(1)/a(2) as being anticipated by Uozumi (US 2005/0130008 A1), as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-7 & 10 above, as evidenced by Saito (US 2002/0022171 A1).
Regarding Claims 8, 12 & 14 and 15, Uozumi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Further limitation “the anode circuit characterized by its use in a fuel cell system which is to provide electric drive power in a motor vehicle” does not require any structure that differs from the structure of Uozumi. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP 2114(II). Here Uozumi discloses said anode circuit characterized by its use in a fuel cell system (fuel cell system 100, see [0021] and Figure 1 & 9A). Further it would be well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that such fuel cell systems comprising anode circuits are capable of providing electric drive power in a motor vehicle, as evidenced by Saito (see Saito Fig. 1-3 and [0032]).
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.
Claims 5, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uozumi (US 2005/0130008 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-7 & 10 above, in view of Kim (KR 20120057996 A, see machine translation).
Regarding Claims 5 and 9, Uozumi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses a cylindrical nozzle body (47) (see [0030]) but does not explicitly teach wherein the nozzle body tapers at the outer circumference thereof in the flow direction of the fuel gas flow.
Kim teaches an anode circuit (parallel multi-stage hydrogen recirculation ejector device, see Figure 1 and [0013]); a fuel cell (fuel cell, [0013]); at least one nozzle (plurality of ejector nozzles 3); fuel gas (hydrogen, [0016]); fuel gas line (see flow direction of fuel gas in annotated Figure 5 below); recirculation line (see annotated Figure 5 below); outflow line (see annotated Figure 5 below); plurality of nozzles (plurality of ejector nozzles 3); nozzle body (chamber body 1, see Figure 2 and [0014], wherein nozzles 3 inside chamber body 1 have varying diameters (see annotated Figure 5 below).
Accordingly, nozzle body (1) is formed in a tapered configuration in the flow direction of the fuel gas as indicated by the horizontal arrows (see annotated Figure 5 below) wherein this configuration allows for new hydrogen and recirculated hydrogen to be introduced and discharged at appropriate operating conditions into the fuel cell stack (see [0014]-0015]).
PNG
media_image2.png
561
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Uozumi and Kim are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the field of fuel cell systems. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cylindrical valve body of Uozumi with the tapered chamber body of Kim to obtain the predictable result of supplying fuel gas under controlled flow conditions into the fuel cell.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Uozumi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses:
wherein the recirculation line (35, 41 and 53a) is formed at an angle to the fuel gas line or outflow line (51a, 23 and 29) (Uozumi discloses recirculation line (53a) formed at a 90° angle to the fuel gas line (49a) (see annotated Figure 9A above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uozumi (US 2005/0130008 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-7 & 10 above, in view of Kim (KR 20120057996 A, see machine translation), as evidenced by Saito (US 2002/0022171 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Uozumi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Further limitation “the anode circuit characterized by its use in a fuel cell system which is to provide electric drive power in a motor vehicle” does not require any structure that differs from the structure of Uozumi. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP 2114(II). Here Uozumi discloses said anode circuit characterized by its use in a fuel cell system (fuel cell system 100, see [0021] and Figure 1 & 9A). Further it would be well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that such fuel cell systems comprising anode circuits are capable of providing electric drive power in a motor vehicle, as evidenced by Saito (see Saito Fig. 1-3 and [0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FIKI V OWHOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-3418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712725453. 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.
/F.V.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725