DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on July 14, 2023 and November 9, 2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities. Lines 3-4 of the claim include the limitation “air distribution conduit (15)”.
For the purpose of consistency with the other claims, the reference character should be deleted and the limitation should read: “air distribution conduit”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Line 6 of the claim uses the pronoun “it” to ostensibly refer to the “air distribution channel”. The use of pronouns in the claims is discouraged due to the potential for ambiguity. Applicant is encouraged to replace the pronoun “it” with “the air distribution channel”.
Line 12 of the claim includes the limitation “air inlet channels that that are fluidly connected”. The word “that” is repeated.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities. Lines 2-3 of the claim recite the limitation: “an air supply arrangement according to claim 1”. The indefinite article should be replaced with the definite article “the”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities. Line 2 of the claim recites the limitation: “a fuel cell stack as claimed in claim 15”. The indefinite article should be replaced with the definite article “the”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities. Lines 2-3 of the claim recite the limitation: “a power supply system according to claim 17”. The indefinite article should be replaced with the definite article “the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 10 and 11 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 10 recites the limitations "the side wall of an aperture" (line 2) and “the surface of the air flow plate” (lines 3-4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitations “the air inlet channels” (line 2) and "the face of the air flow plate" (line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 13 and 14 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 13 recites the limitations "the surface of the air flow plate" (line 3), “the top portion of the air flow plate” (lines 6-7) and "the flow restriction" (line 9). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites the limitation "the short-tapered region" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2003/0162074, hereinafter Menjak.
Regarding claim 1, Menjak teaches an air supply arrangement for supplying air to a plurality of oxygen electrodes (31, “air flow plates”) of a fuel cell stack (paragraph [0060]).
Each oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”) has an associated deep channel (33, “gas exchange volume”) (paragraph [0068] and Figure 1 below).
Each oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”) has a hole (34, “air supply region”). Each hole (34, “air supply region”) forms part of a common air supply pipe, which supplies air to the oxygen electrodes (31, “air flow plates”) (paragraphs [0060, 0068, 0090] and figures 1, 6 and 12).
Each oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”) also has a deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”). The deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) extends across part of the width of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”), provides an air header volume and has an inlet and an outlet (paragraph [0068] and Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
811
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1 - Illustrating features of Menjak's assembly.)]
The common air supply pipe is partly formed by the hole (34, “air supply region”) of each oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”) and therefore the hole (34, “air supply region”) is fluidically connected to the common air supply pipe.
Each hole (34, “air supply region”) is fluidically connected to the inlet of the deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”). The outlet of the deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) is fluidically connected to the other deep channel (33, “gas exchange volume”) (Figure 1 above).
Each other deep channel (33, “gas exchange volume”) extends across at least part of the width of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”) (Figure 1 above).
Each deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) is elongate and extends across substantially all of the width of the other deep channel (33, “gas exchange volume”) (Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 2, Menjak teaches that each deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) comprises a flow restriction between its hole (34, “air supply region”) and its inlet (see Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Menjak teaches that the edge of the flow restriction is tapered (Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Menjak teaches that each deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) tapers outwardly from a point furthest from its hole (34, “air supply region”) such that the cross-sectional area of each deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) increases to a maximum area near to the hole (34, “air supply region”) (paragraph [0068] and Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Menjak teaches that the outlet from each deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) comprises an array of air inlet channels (32), which are fluidically connected to the associated other deep channel (33, “gas exchange volume”) (paragraph [0066] and Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Menjak teaches that the common air supply pipe is provided nearer to one side of the fuel cell stack (figure 12).
For each oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”), the hole (34, “air supply region”) is provided nearer to one side of the deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) (Figure 1 above).
The deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) is provided with a longer tapered region on one side of the hole (34, “air supply region”) and a shorter tapered region on the other side of the hole (34, “air supply region”) (Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
697
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2 - Indicating the "long tapered-region" and the "short tapered-region".)]
Regarding claim 7, Menjak teaches that the air header volume provided by the deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) is defined in part by the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”).
Regarding claim 8, Menjak teaches that the deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) is formed in the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”) and is an aperture in the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”) (paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Menjak teaches that the fuel cell stack comprises an electrolyte chamber (40, “flow plate”) located on one side of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”) and a hydrogen electrode (20, “fuel flow plate”) located on the other side of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”) (paragraphs [0060-0062] and figure 4).
The air header volume may be defined as the air available in the air supply pipe and the deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”). The air supply pipe passes through the electrolyte chamber (40, “flow plate”) and the hydrogen electrode (20, “fuel flow plate”). As such, the air header volume is defined by the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”), the electrolyte chamber (40, “flow plate”) and the hydrogen electrode (20, “fuel flow plate”).
Regarding claim 10, the air header volume may be defined as the air available in the air supply pipe and the deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”). As such, it is defined by the side wall of the hole (34, “air supply region”). The hole (34, “air supply region”) is an aperture that passes through the entire depth of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”) in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”). The air header volume is also defined by a solid wall of the electrolyte chamber (40, “flow plate”) – this is the wall of the hole forming the air supply pipe passing through the electrolyte chamber (40, “flow plate”). Similarly, the air header volume is defined by a solid wall of the hydrogen electrode (20, “fuel flow plate”) – this is the wall of the hole forming the air supply pipe passing through the hydrogen electrode (20, “fuel flow plate”).
The hole (34, “air supply region”) is provided as part of the air header volume. The common air supply pipe is fluidly connected to the deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) via the hole (34, “air supply region”).
Regarding claim 11, Menjak teaches that the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”), the electrolyte chamber (40, “flow plate”) and the hydrogen electrode (20, “fuel flow plate”) are each provided with a hole (“air supply region”) (paragraph [0060]). The holes (“air supply regions”) overlap and a section of the common air supply pipe is formed by them.
Regarding claim 12, Menjak teaches an air flow path through the fuel cell stack, which passes through an electrolyte chamber (40, “flow plate”) and channels (32), which are recesses cut into a face of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate) (paragraphs [0060, 0066]). Therefore, the fuel cell stack includes “air inlet channels” that are defined by a surface of an electrolyte chamber (40, “flow plate”) and recesses cut into a face of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate).
Regarding claim 13, Menjak teaches that the hole (34, “air supply region”) is a circular hole that passes through the entire depth of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate) in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate) (paragraphs [0060, 0068] and figure 6).
The hole (34, “air supply region”) is located nearer to one side of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate) than to the other side (figure 6).
The deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) includes the hole (34, “air supply region”) and is therefore partially formed by an aperture that extends through the entire depth of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate) in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate).
The deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) extends along an end portion of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate). It is noted that absent a reference point, the designation “top” has no absolute meaning. In the present case, the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate) could be rotated such that the deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) extends along a “top” portion of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate).
The deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) includes a long-tapered region which extends away from one side of the hole (34, “air supply region”) and a short-tapered region which extends away from the opposite side of the hole (34, “air supply region”) (Figure 2 above).
The deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) further includes a flow restriction, which is a necked region and is located between the long-tapered region and the hole (34, “air supply region”) (Figure 1 above).
When rotated as indicated above, the deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) has a “bottom” surface that is provided with an array of air inlet channels (32) that are fluidly connected between the deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) and the other deep channel (33, “gas exchange volume”) and thus form the outlet from the deep channel (33, “air distribution conduit”) (Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Menjak teaches that the other deep channel (33, “gas exchange volume”) includes hole (34) and is therefore partially formed by an aperture that extends through the entire depth of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate) in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate).
The array of channels (32) are fluidly connected to the other deep channel (33, “gas exchange volume”) and are further fluidly connected to a common air discharge pipe passing through the fuel cell stack and to an air outlet region (15).
The array of channels (32) are capable of serving as an “outlet” from the other deep channel (33, “gas exchange volume”) as gas is capable of flowing from the other deep channel (33, “gas exchange volume”) into the array of channels (32). As such, a subset of the array of channels (32) may be designated as “air outlet channels”.
Regarding claim 15, Menjak teaches a fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of electrochemical cells (paragraph [0062]). Each electrochemical cell includes the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”) having an air supply arrangement according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Menjak teaches that each oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”) includes a short tapered-region, which is an aperture in the oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate) (Figure 2 above). Given that each electrochemical cell includes an oxygen electrode (31, “air flow plate”), there is a short tapered-region extending through each of the electrochemical cells.
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.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2003/0162074, hereinafter Menjak as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0326668, hereinafter Ballatine.
Regarding claim 17, Menjak teaches a power supply system comprising the fuel cell stack of claim 15. The fuel cell stack powers an electrical device, such as a vehicle (paragraph [0010]).
Menjak fails to teach a control system.
Ballatine teaches an electrical vehicle charging station comprising fuel cell stacks, a controller and a connector mechanism (abstract, paragraphs [0020, 0063]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Menjak’s fuel cell stack with a controller and connector mechanism for the purpose of being able to power an electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, Menjak as modified by Ballatine teaches an electric vehicle charging station comprising the power supply system of claim 17 (paragraph [0006]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2003/0162074, hereinafter Menjak and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0326668, hereinafter Ballatine as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2003/0175581, hereinafter Kordesch.
Regarding claim 18, Menjak teaches a fuel cell stack comprised of alkaline fuel cells. Hydrogen as a reactive gas is supplied to the fuel cell stack (paragraph [0060] and figure 10).
Menjak does not specify the source of the hydrogen gas.
Menjak fails to teach an ammonia cracker system producing hydrogen gas and a conveyor channel connecting the ammonia cracker system to the fuel cell stack.
The use of an ammonia cracker system as a supplier of hydrogen gas to alkaline fuel cells is well-known in the art – see, e.g. Kordesch (paragraphs [0014] and figures 3 and 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect an ammonia cracker system to Menjak’s fuel cell stack using a conduit for the purpose of supplying hydrogen gas to Menjak’s fuel cell stack.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights