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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeyama, et. al. (US2020144636A1), in view of Kühne, et. al. (US2017069937A1) and Shelton, et. al. (US2017202608A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Takeyama teaches a conveying apparatus for media in a fuel cell system (fuel cell 20), the apparatus comprising: having a drive machine (motor chamber 56), via which at least one conveying device for air (“[0020]the compressor 320 is driven by a compressor motor 350 to compress the air and supply the compressed air through the oxidizing gas supply pipe 330 to the cathode-side flow path of the fuel cell 20”) and at least one conveying device for recirculated anode exhaust gas (hydrogen pump 290 and fuel gas recirculation pipe 240) are driven via at least one cooling medium pump (cooling medium pump 525) Takeyama at [0018 -22], Fig. 1.
As presented within Takeyama, the cooling medium pump 525 and the compressor motor 350 (and thereby the rotor 41 which comprises the motor) are not connected; the medium pumps’ drive mechanism is not disclosed.
PNG
media_image1.png
339
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Takeyama.
Kühne teaches a thermal management system which may be used for “[0003] high-temperature battery modules,” wherein each fluid energy machine has a drive unit and a transport unit, “[0010] which are each coupled to the other for the purpose of transmitting a rotational force, “ which are “[0033] According to an embodiment of the invention, it is provided that the drive unit and the transport unit are coupled to each other by means of at least one magnetic coupling, in particular by means of two magnetic couplings . . . pressure shocks that propagate, in particular, in the fluid line, or rapid flow variations are transmitted only in damped form to the thermofluid in the module(s). In particular, such a decoupling proves to be very advantageous if structural elements liable to sustain damage under mechanical load are provided in the module . . . the drive unit, for instance, can easily be removed from the magnetic coupling in order to replace it.” Further, Kühne teaches a benefit to “[0019] For the purpose of generating a fluid stream in the fluid line of the at least partly external fluid circuit, the latter typically has a pump to generate the fluid stream. Thus, advantageously, only one central energizing unit, for example the pump, which is connected to the fluid circuit, is required to supply energy to a plurality of modules. This reduces the complexity and the number of structural elements and components for an individual thermal management system in the individual modules.” To restate paragraph [0019], it is beneficial to be able to utilize a single drive machine to power multiple modules (or indeed components) in terms of complexity.
However, Kühne’s magnetic coupling and drive machine are not utilized within a fuel cell apparatus.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the fuel cell, and particularly the drive machine of Takeyama, such that the rotor 41 is “directly coupled” to the cooling medium pump 525, and such that that the cooling medium pump 525 is magnetically coupled to the one of the conveying devices (in this modification, the fuel gas recirculation pipe 240 and its hydrogen pump 290) by way of the magnetic couplings of Kühne, and the drive machine or the conveying device is magnetically coupled to the other conveying device (the compressor 320), because Kühne teaches a benefit to reduced complexity, protection of the components from mechanical damage (i.e. via friction), and an ability to connect multiple components (i.e., connecting the coolant pump and conveying devices) to the same drive machine.
Regarding the amended terms, modified Takeyama teaches a gear for speed matching is provided in the area of at least one of the conveying devices. Takeyama teaches “[0031] A speed-up gear having a first gear 43 and a second gear 44 is placed in the speed-up chamber 57 . . . Engagement of the first gear 43 with the second gear 44 causes the rotational force of the first rotating shaft 40 to be transmitted to the second rotating shaft 45 . As a result, this causes the second rotating shaft 45 to rotate at a higher speed than the first rotating shaft 40.” Takeyama at [0031].
In terms of the meaning of “speed matching,” the present specification explains, “[p.1] The required speeds and delivery rates are matched via appropriate speed step-up and/or step-down devices, i.e. gears, and, if necessary, the individual units are switched on and switched off for the drive by the one drive unit. . . . a gear for speed matching is provided in the area of the cooling medium pump and/or one of the conveying devices. It is preferably the case that the gear is arranged on the motor side or in the area of the cooling medium pump and the speed that has already been stepped up is then transmitted via the magnetic clutch to the compressor wheel and/or the fan wheel of the respective conveying device.” In other words, a “gear for speed matching” includes a gear which “steps up” or “steps down” the speed of a rotating shaft. This indicates the gears of Takeyama read upon “a gear or speed matching is provided in the area of at least one of the conveying devices.” Id.
Kühne teaches a magnetic coupling; as now clarified with sufficient antecedent basis, the magnetic clutch this differs from the magnetic coupling as modified insofar as a clutch transmits torque.
Shelton teaches a modular battery having a motor, wherein “[0118] The motor driven modular battery powered handheld surgical instrument may comprise a primary rotary drive capable of being selectably coupleable to at least two independent actuation functions (first, second, both, neither) and utilize a clutch mechanism located in a distal modular elongated tube.” Shelton at [0118]. Moreover, “[0276] In one aspect, a micro-electrical clutching configuration enables rotation of the distal rotation section 1134 and articulation of the articulation section 1130 about pivot 1138 and articulation axis 1175 . In one aspect, a ferro-fluid clutch couples the clutch to the primary rotary drive shaft 1172 via a fluid pump. The clutch ferro-fluid is activated by electrical coils 1181 , 1183 , 1185 which are wrapped around the knife drive rod 1145 . The other ends of the coils 1181 , 1183 , 1185 are connected to three separate control circuits to independently actuate the clutches 1174 , 1178 , 1179 . . . [0277] When the articulation clutch 1174 is engaged by energizing the coil 1181 and the distal head rotation clutch 1178 and the jaw closure clutch 1179 are disengaged by de-energizing the coils 1183 , 1185 , a gear 1180 is mechanically coupled to the primary rotary drive shaft 1172 to articulate the articulation section 1130. [0277] When the articulation clutch 1174 is engaged by energizing the coil 1181 and the distal head rotation clutch 1178 and the jaw closure clutch 1179 are disengaged by de-energizing the coils 1183 , 1185 , a gear 1180 is mechanically coupled to the primary rotary drive shaft 1172 to articulate the articulation section 1130.” Shelton at [0276 – 277]. While Shelton pertains to a modular battery and a medical device, Shelton teaches “[0008] A challenge of using these medical devices is the inability to fully control and customize the functions of the surgical instruments. It would be desirable to provide a surgical instrument that overcomes some of the deficiencies of current instruments,” and notes that the electronics, including the magnetic clutch, allow for digital / algorithmic control of the surgical instrument. Id. at [0008 – 13, 118 – 121]. This further supports an inference that a magnetic clutch permits tunable, electronically control over a gear system in general.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the conveying apparatus of modified Takeyama, such that it comprises a magnetic clutch as the magnetic coupling, and wherein the gear is provided on the side of the magnetic clutch facing the respective conveying device, because Shelton teaches a magnetic clutch permits tunable, electronic control over a gear system in general.
Claim 1 is obvious over Takeyama, in view of Kühne and Shelton.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Takeyama.
Takeyama teaches the conveying device for the air is designed as a flow compressor (compressor 320). Takeyama at [0034], Fig. 1.
Claim 2 is obvious over Takeyama, in view of Kühne and Shelton
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Takeyama.
Takeyama teaches a pump 290 which serves to “pressurize the fuel gas for the purpose of fuel gas.” Takeyama at [0018]. However, this is not a fan. In addition to the pump in the cooling system 500, a fan is disposed upon the radiator 530 to “accelerate heat release from the radiator.” Id. at [0023]. However, there is a space between the hydrogen pump 290 and the gas liquid separator 280 in Fig. 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the fuel cell system and conveying device of modified Takeyama, such that the conveying device for the recirculation of anode exhaust gas is designed as a recirculation fan disposed between the hydrogen pump 290 and the gas liquid separator 280 to accelerate the recirculation of exhaust gas, because the use of a fan is taught to provide a benefit to the acceleration the movement of gas by Takeyama, and logically this would accelerate recirculation in the same manner.
Claim 3 is obvious over Takeyama, in view of Kühne and Shelton.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Takeyama.
Takeyama teaches a fuel cell system and both conveying apparatuses of Claim 1, indicating modified Takeyama teaches a fuel cell having a conveying apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Takeyama at [0015].
Claim 6 is obvious over Takeyama, in view of Kühne and Shelton.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Takeyama.
Takeyama teaches a fuel cell vehicle, fuel cell system and both conveying apparatuses of Claim 1, indicating modified Takeyama teaches a fuel cell having a conveying apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Takeyama at [0015].
Claim 7 is obvious over Takeyama, in view of Kühne and Shelton.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is obvious over modified Takeyama.
Takeyama teaches a fuel cell system and both conveying apparatuses of Claim 1. Modified Takeyama teaches a fuel cell having a conveying apparatus as claimed in Claim 2. Takeyama at [0015].
Claim 11 is obvious over Takeyama, in view of Kühne and Shelton. .
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 3. Claim 3 is obvious over modified Takeyama.
Takeyama teaches a fuel cell system and both conveying apparatuses of Claim 3, indicating modified Takeyama teaches a fuel cell having a conveying apparatus as claimed in Claim 3. Takeyama at [0015].
Claim 12 is obvious over Takeyama, in view of Kühne and Shelton.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 11-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights