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 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the (5,6) after machine in line 3 should be removed. 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 1-20 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 recites the limitation "the air conveying device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner suggests the following amendment: “a common air conveying device, wherein the common air conveying device”
Claim 2 recites “each of the stages” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is only antecedent basis for two stages.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " electric machine " in line 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “one for one and the other for the other of the fuel cell systems , respectively.” It is unclear what structure is required by this claim limitation.
The Examiner suggests the following amendments to Claim 2: “wherein each of the two stages includes an electrical machine al machine
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the air conveying device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner suggests the following amendment: “wherein the two stages of the common air conveying device are designed for isobaric operation.”
Claim 8 has several recitations of “cathode compartment(s)” and “anode compartment(s)” which have unclear singular versus plural applications.
Claim 8 recites “the latter” in line 13 is unclear as to what structure the latter is in refence to.
The Examiner suggests the following amendments to Claim 8: “ wherein an exhaust air line fromeach cathode compartment of the fuel cell stack or stacks of each fuel cell system and at least one fuel supply device for supplying each anode compartmenteach anode compartmenteach cathode compartment in an exhaust air line downstream of or in the area of thefurther valve device, wherein a gas jet pump drivable by the air flowing around the cathode compartment is arranged in the cathode bypass and is connected in a switchable manner on the a suction side to an anode compartment and/or a cathode compartment .”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "in each case" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner suggests the following amendment: “wherein in the respective each of the anode circuitsincludes a fan is driven as a recirculation conveying device”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second compressor stage" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner suggest cancellation of Claim 10 because there is no claimed structural limitations indicating the second compressor stage, however, there is only support for placement of the humidifier in reference to the second compressor stage. Substantial amendments would be necessary to Claim 10 to not introduce 112 issues.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the air conveying device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner suggests the following amendment “wherein the two stages of the common air conveying device are designed for isobaric operation.”
Claims 2-20 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights