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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Gilbert reference still anticipates at least claim 1 as amended. The USC 102 rejections in view of Shimanuki have been withdrawn and the USC 112 rejections have been obviated by amendment. Since the Shimanuki reference is now used as a secondary reference, the arguments directed to the anticipation of claims 1 and 2 by Shimanuki are moot. The USC 103 rejection are only argued in the context of the arguments directed to the primary references—arguments that are not maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., direct transfer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant asserts in paragraph 2 on page 7 of the Remarks that “Gilbert fails to disclose a connection configured to collect the excess water from the anode outlet and directly transfer the excess water to the cathode inlet.” Claim 1 as recited does not necessitate a direct transfer and can utilize intermediaries as the rejection states. Note that new claim 11 is not anticipated by Gilbert because it does positively recite direct connection.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilbert (US 2003/0170506 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Gilbert discloses an apparatus comprising: a fuel cell 14 with an anode 16, cathode 18, membrane 20 between anode and cathode (paragraph 26), cathode inlet 34, cathode outlet 36, anode inlet 30, and anode outlet 32 (paragraph 28). Gilbert discloses that water is collected in a buffer storage means 68 from both the anode and cathode (paragraph 4) where it is used to humidify both the materials presents in the anode inlet and cathode inlet (paragraph 10) via a humidification connection 116 (paragraph 38) by adding water to the oxidant line 148 (paragraph 43).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 7, and 8, Gilbert discloses a control unit 54 configured to connect a dosing unit upstream of humidification connection 116 with the oxidant line 148 and determine and discharge atomized water in a dosed and pressurized manner (paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 9, Gilbert discloses that the apparatus is capable of increasing pressure across the system to conduct water into the humidification connection over a time period (frequency) (paragraphs 38-43).
Regarding claim 10, Gilbert discloses that the apparatus comprises a bypass valve capable of venting the cathode exhaust into the environment (paragraph 29).
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shim (US 2013/0130135 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Shim discloses an apparatus comprising: a fuel cell 10 with an anode 15, a cathode 13, and a member 11 between them (paragraph 53); a cathode inlet 56, a cathode outlet 55, an anode inlet 71, an anode outlet 91 (see Figure 1); wherein the anode outlet 91 is connected to a humidification connection 50 in an oxidant line directly connected to the cathode inlet 56 so that that oxidant flowing to the cathode inlet can be humidified (paragraph 68).
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 7, Shim discloses a dosing valve 93 upstream of the humidification connection 50 capable of controllably dispensing water from the anode outlet (paragraph 67) via spray (paragraph 76).
Regarding claim 12, Shim discloses a dosing valve 93 upstream of the humidification connection 50 capable of controllably dispensing water from the anode outlet (paragraph 67).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert or Shim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimanuki (US 2002/0119356 A1).
Shim discloses a mixing means upstream of the humidification connection 50 (paragraph 76) but neither Shim nor Gilbert disclose a mixer downstream of the humidification connection. Shimanuki—in an invention for a fuel cell system with humification—discloses a mixing unit that supplies water from the cathode and anode exhausts to the cathode and anode inlets for humidification (paragraph 36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add or rearrange the mixing means of Shimanuki to Shim or Gilbert for increased uniformity.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert or Shim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang (US 2019/0312290 A1).
Neither Gilbert nor Shim discloses a porous body. Jang—in an invention for humidifying oxidant entering the cathode of a fuel cell—discloses an evaporation porous body 500 in the humidification unit 1 through which oxidant flows to increase contact area between water and air (paragraph 16) the advantageous effects listed in paragraphs 31-35. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add an evaporation porous body 500 as in Jang to increase contact area between water and air in Gilbert or Shim.
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 IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights