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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed June 14, 2023 & July 18, 2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The “separated cross section” is considered any cross section “through which flow can take place and through which flow does take place.” See the instant specification, Page 3. The specification consistently describes the separated cross section as such, and separated cross section 161 - 168 are the inside of the nozzle See the instant specification, Page 9 & Fig. 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
481
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2, 3 & 6 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.
In claims 2 & 6, the term “preferably” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the following feature is a required element or optional. An appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is rejected based on dependency to claim 2.
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(s) 1-4 & 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al. US Pub. 2020/0373591 in view of Kato et al. JP 2007294442A and further in view of Inger et al., CN 110748690A.
With respect to claim 1, Lucas teaches a device for supplying air to a fuel cell (humidifying cathode gas to a fuel cell; See the Abstract), having at least one air conveying device (a gas inlet 9 connected to a feed line 8 for the cathode gas which is to be humidified; where feed line 8 is the air conveying device; Fig. 3) and at least one humidifying device (14; Fig. 3), which is configured to supply condensed product water from the fuel cell (water collected from the separator of the fuel cell is collected as liquid 11, and supplied to the nozzle of the humidifier by inlet 21; [0036]; Fig. 3) to the compressed supply air flow by means of at least one nozzle (liquid supply 11 is connected to the feed line 8 ; [0037]; cathode gas is drawn in through the compressor 10, introduced into the feed line 8 [0032]; thus the humidifier supplies water from liquid supply 11 to compressed air in feed line 8) wherein a field of two-substance nozzle
PNG
media_image2.png
376
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, the restoring force for each of the separated cross sections
PNG
media_image3.png
380
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, the separated cross sections through which flow can take place are arranged directly in the outlet of a flow compressor used as an air conveying device (separated cross section is identical to the flow of the outlet of a flow compressor used as an air conveying device which is feed line 8 ; at the arrow in Fig. 3). With respect to claim 8, the supply air flow is free of an intercooler and a membrane humidifier (the heat exchanger 13 is a charge air cooler, not an intercooler as there is no down stream compression stage before entering the fuel cell. Fig. 3 and [0034]; The only separators are in the fuel cell [0035] and in the anode circuit (fuel line) for water collection, not air flow line [0036]. With respect to claim 10, the limitation supplying a vehicle with at least part of its electrical drive power is an intended use. As to claim 10, it has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). Therefore, although the limitations have been considered they are not given patentable weight, as they do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from Lucas.
Although Lucas teaches one two-substance nozzle, the reference does not expressly disclose two-substance nozzles for the supply of water is formed in the flow cross section of the supply air flow (claim 1); each of the separated cross sections claim 1); the restoring force is formed as a magnetic force between a switchable and/or permanent magnet in the area of the valve body or preferably in the area of the valve seat and a magnetizable material of the valve seat or preferably the valve body (claim 2); the valve body is designed as a hollow sphere made of a magnetizable material (claim3); at least two air conveying devices and/or humidifying devices are provided as a sequential cascade (claim 8).
Kato teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: two-substance nozzles for the supply of water is formed in the flow cross section of the supply air flow (first and second nozzles 55 a and 55 b may be provided in the air manifold 54; See Best Mode; Fig. 15, FIGS. 15A to 15E, the maximum reach region MRa of the first nozzle 55a and the maximum reach region MRb of the second nozzle 55b are made to coincide with each other; FIGS. 15A to 15E; claim 1); at least two air conveying devices and/or humidifying devices are provided as a sequential cascade (first and second nozzles 55 a and 55 b may be provided in the air manifold 54, thus two humidifiers; FIGS. 15A to 15E; claim 8).
PNG
media_image4.png
566
788
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Inger teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: each of the separated cross sections through which flow can take place comprises a valve having a valve seat and a valve body, which is pressed counter to the flow by a restoring force in the direction of the valve seat (valve having valve body; summary of invention paragraph 10, valve seat 14; Fig. 1a; soft magnetic pieces can pertinently be used for holding force of executing mechanism and when necessary as the sealing force of the sealing element, said sealing element sealing pressure overcomes the medium for the valve seat seal; summary of invention paragraph 13, claim 1); the restoring force is formed as a magnetic force between a switchable and/or permanent magnet in the area of the valve body or preferably in the area of the valve seat and a magnetizable material of the valve seat or preferably the valve body (soft magnetic pieces can pertinently be used for holding force of executing mechanism and when necessary as the sealing force of the sealing element, said sealing element sealing pressure overcomes the medium for the valve seat seal; summary of invention paragraph 13, valve having valve body; summary of invention paragraph 10, valve seat 14; Fig. 1a; claim 2); the valve body is designed as a hollow sphere made of a magnetizable material (magnetic pieces are a plurality of spheres; teaching claim 3; claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ two-substance nozzles for the supply of water is formed in the flow cross section of the supply air flow of Kato, as the device of Lucas, in order to increase the humidification area of the air flow, as suggested by Kato. See the maximum reach region MRa of the first nozzle 55a and the maximum reach region MRb of the second nozzle 55b are made to coincide with each other; FIGS. 15A to 15E; See Best mode, paragraph 36. Also, duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to each of the separated cross sections through which flow can take place comprises a valve having a valve seat and a valve body, which is pressed counter to the flow by a restoring force in the direction of the valve seat (claim 1); it would have been obvious to employ the valve having a valve seat and a valve body of Inger, in the separated cross sections of Lucas in view of Kato, to improve control of the flowrate. Regarding being pressed counter to the flow by a restoring force in the direction of the valve seat, it would have been obvious in the separated cross sections of Lucas in view of Kato & Inger, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
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(s) 5 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al. US Pub. 2020/0373591 in view of Kato et al. JP 2007294442A and further in view of Inger et al., CN 110748690A, and even further in view of 神家 規寿 JP 4502468 B2.
Lucas in view of Kato and Inger teach a device as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Lucas does not expressly disclose: the water can be conveyed via a conveying pump directly or via a collecting line to the two-substance nozzles (claim 5); the water flows upstream of the two-component nozzles through a heat exchanger, which is preferably operable by means of waste heat from a fuel cell system comprising the fuel cell (claim 6).
神家 規寿 teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the water can be conveyed via a conveying pump directly or via a collecting line to the two-substance nozzles (water pump 52 to deliver water in a fuel cell system; [0013];claim 5); the water flows upstream of the two-component nozzles through a heat exchanger, which is preferably operable by means of waste heat from a fuel cell system comprising the fuel cell ( heat exchanger 55 is provided for exchanging heat between the cooling water; claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the pump of 神家 規寿,to pump directly or via a collecting line to the two-substance nozzles of Lucas in view of Kato and Inger, to expedite flow of fluid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723