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
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/8/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 6/8/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the product and the process are within 1.475(b) and thus are allowed to be claimed together under unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because while the product and the within 1.475(b) and allowed to be claimed within unity of invention the product and the process first have to meet 1.475(a) which states:
(a) An international and a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept ("requirement of unity of invention"). Where a group of inventions is claimed in an application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
Thus, as the examiner has submitted prior art that shows the “special technical features” within the previous office action. Given that the applicant has not pointed to any errors within the examiners assertion of the prior art. The applicant thus has not met the requirement of 1.475(a) and therefore even though the applicant has the combination within 1.475(b) the applicant is still subjected to the restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
J
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 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astrom (WO 2016/066882 as sent on 4/6/2026), and further in view of Brunner (WO 2012/106564 sent on 4/6/2026).
As to claim 1, Astrom discloses a recirculated solid oxide electrolyzer cell system (page 12 lines 1-11), a cell (figure 1, figure 4 the anode, electrolyte and cathode make the cell, discussed throughout) comprising a fuel side (figure 1 #100, figure 4 the anode side, page 1 lines 1-20 and discussed throughout), an oxygen rich side (figure 1 #102, figure 4 the cathode side, page 1 lines 1-20 and discussed throughout), and an electrolyte element between the fuel side and the oxygen rich side (figure 1 #104, figure 4 the electrolyte, page 1 lines 1-20 and discussed throughout), the system comprising at least one ejector configured for recirculating a fraction of gas exhausted from the fuel side of each cell and for providing a desired recirculation flow rate of recirculated flow (figure 4 #127, page 5 lines 5-25; page, 15 lines 5-25 and discussed throughout), the ejector having at least one nozzle (figures 5A and 5B #117, discussed throughout); means for providing at least one primary feedstock fuel fluid to said nozzle of the ejector (page 5 lines 29- page 16 line 15 and discussed throughout), which nozzle has a convergent-divergent flow channel through which the fluid will expand from an initial higher pressure to a lower pressure (figures 5a and 5b, page 10 lines 15-32 and the gas expanding, discussed throughout); wherein the ejector and possible sources of leakage are contained within structures conveying non-explosive reactant to form leakage and explosive safe structure (page 10 lines 15-32, and discussed throughout), and the system comprises a nested arrangement for at least one feed-in route and an exhaust route (page 6 lines 25- page 7 line 22 and discussed throughout), the arrangement being nested within the structure conveying non-explosive reactant (page 6 lines 25- page 7 line 22 and discussed throughout), and a trim heater arranged within the structures to provide heat to both fuel side and oxygen rich side flows (figure 4 #510 and #300, page 13 lines 1-10 and discussed throughout).
Astrom is silent to wherein the ejector is a supersonic ejector. Brunner teachers use of supersonic ejector in a recirculated electrolyzer cell system (page 3, lines 12-20; page 9, lines 19-21) for the purpose of creating a static pressure (page 6, lines 29-30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to modify the ejector of Astrom to operate supersonically, as discloses by Brunner for the purposes of creating a static fluid pressure within the ejector nozzle. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to modify the ejector from Astrom to be a supersonic ejector as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
As to claim 2, modified Astrom discloses further comprising a controllable secondary release route from the fuel side to the ambient (figure 4 #202, discussed throughout).
As to claim 5, modified Astrom discloses wherein, the system comprises means for performing common-railing for hot cores to a shared air feed and exhaust route regardless of variations in operating point (figure 4, the fuel cells are within stacks, abstract, the air feed is shared and the air is shared thus anything being hot can be a hot core and thus read on the instant claimed invention i.e. the fuel cell exit or a portion of the heat exchangers, the reformer or after burner).
As to claim 6, modified Astrom discloses further comprising an enclosed and internally insulated hot core to eliminate hot feedthroughs (figure 4, anything being hot can be a hot core and thus read on the instant claimed invention i.e. the fuel cell exit or a portion of the heat exchangers, the reformer or after burner).
As to claim 7, modified Astrom discloses further comprising a low temperature and gas-tight outer shell of a hot core to be adapted to a pressure vessel shape capable of handling high pressures (figure 4, anything being hot can be a hot core and thus read on the instant claimed invention i.e. the fuel cell exit or a portion of the heat exchangers, the reformer or after burner; note that the portions have outer shells and handling higher pressures is vague, thus the cited portions read on the instant claimed invention).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The claims require structural limitations which would not be obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights