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 Amendment
Amendment filed 10 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Claims 1 and 10 are amended. Claims 2-9 are as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Drawings have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11 December 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 09 April 2026, with respect to claims 1, 3 and 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections to claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09 April 2026, with respect to claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant on page 8 of the argument recites the amended claim 1 language “...air discharged by the fuel cell as a result of a chemical reaction taking place in the fuel cell to the at least one first means of injection...”. However, claim 10 was not amended to include the same description of where the air is coming from. Examiner asserts “a fuel cell” of claim 10 can be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as a fuel cell which includes a reformer (See at least: prior art of Akagi et al. (US 20110008701 A1) discussed below for reasons of the BRI of “fuel cell” with “reformer”). Therefore, the Examiner maintains the previous rejection to claims 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 April 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Abdel-Maksoud et al. (US 20050215129 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Abdel-Maksoud et al. discloses a method for reducing the hydrodynamic drag (See at least: paras. [0009] “…This results advantageously in less friction between the water jet and the bottom of the ship with good distribution of the gases also carried along in the water…” and [0011] “…This results in an advantageous reduction of the friction at the sides of the ship too…”) of a vessel (See at least: Abstract “…fast seagoing ship…”), the method comprising:
conveying a first amount of air discharged by a fuel cell (See at least para. [0032] “…exhaust gases fed by the exhaust pipe 20…” in combination of para [0009] “…The exhaust gases of any power generation unit, e.g. a steam turbine unit or a diesel reformer of a fuel cell unit can thus be directed into the water…” and para. [0030] “… the rising air bubbles…”; where it is interpreted that the chemical reaction of the fuel cell did not scavenge all the oxygen for the exhaust gas to be still considered as air.) by a means of conveyance (exhaust pipe 20; See at least: Fig. 5) to a means of injection (chamber 21; See at least Fig. 5) comprised by a hull (See at least: fig. 1 showing the bottom 4 of the ship’s hull), and;
injecting the first amount of air by the means of injection along a surface (lower bottom 4 of the ship ; See at least: figs. 1-2 and 5, para [0027] “…the housings of the water jets are designated with reference characters 1 and 2 and these are located in an incorporated section 3 of the lower bottom 4 of the ship.”) of the hull intended to be immersed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “...air discharged by the fuel cell as a result of a chemical reaction taking place in the fuel cell to the at least one first means of injection...”. The closest prior art of Abdel-Maksoud et al. (US 20050215129 A1) discloses in para. [0009] “The exhaust gases of any power generation unit, e.g. a steam turbine unit or a diesel reformer of a fuel cell unit can thus be directed into the water...” where the Examiner interprets the exhaust gas discharged from “a diesel reformer of a fuel cell” to not be “air discharged by the fuel cell as a result of a chemical reaction taking place in the fuel cell” in light of the Applicant’s arguments filed 09 April 2026 (see pages 8-12). The Examiner considered the prior art of Akagi et al. (US 20110008701 A1) which teaches a reformer (RF1, RF2; See at least: fig. 1 where the reformers are located within the within the fuel cell FC) with combined exhaust gases from the Reformer and Fuel Cell are discharged outside (See at least: para [0063] “exhaust gas led into the exhaust gas chamber 17 is discharged to the outside from an exhaust port.”). However, the invention of Akagi does not use diesel exhaust gas as the source of the reformer (See at least: para [00650 “a reformed gas obtained by reforming a utility gas or the like or a fuel gas such as hydrogen”) therefore the combination would be improper. Further, the Examiner considered the prior art of both Sancoff (US 20120315811 A1) (See at least: claim 8 and claim 15) and Drefs et al. (DE 10141893 A1) (See at least: claim 1 and claim 8) which both teach a fast craft/ship with fuel cells and bubbles to reduce drag however do not connect the two embodiments together as claimed by the Applicant. Therefore, the arrangement of “...air discharged by the fuel cell as a result of a chemical reaction taking place in the fuel cell to the at least one first means of injection...” is novel in view of the prior art. See selected figs. from the prior art below.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
1526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
406
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
465
1498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Akagi et al. (US 20110008701 A1) is relevant to at least claim 1 as discussed above.
Sancoff (US 20120315811 A1) is relevant to at least claim 1 as discussed above.
Drefs et al. (DE 10141893 A1) is relevant to at least claim 1 as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights