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
Claims 3, 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 3 (and similarly claim 8), assuming the claim intends for the SOFC to be capable of selectively operated in both the fuel cell mode and dual mode, it is recommended the phrasing be amended: “the SOFC is selectively operated in .
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bailey (US2018/0141674).
Re claim 1. Bailey teaches a fuel cell-based multiple power supply system (see Bailey: Figs. 2-4) comprising:
a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) (second fuel cells <214>, see Bailey: [0036], Fig. 2 regarding implementation as PEMFCs);
a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) (first fuel cells <202>, see Bailey: [0033-0034], Fig. 2 regarding implementation as SOFCs); and
an operating control system (controller <290>, see Bailey: [0044], Figs. 2, 4 regarding controller controlling delivery of power to/from all aircraft power system components) configured to operate the PEMFC and operate a load (aircraft loads <208>, <222>, <228>, <234>, <248>, see Bailey: [0050-0052], Figs. 2-4) using electricity produced by the PEMFC in a first operating period (period when first fuel cells/SOFCs <202> are in startup phase and second fuel cells/PEMFCs <214> provide transient power to loads, and/or periods corresponding to steps <410/414> where first and second fuel cells provide power to loads together, see Bailey: [0052-0055], Fig. 4) and to stop operation of the PEMFC and operate the load using electricity produced by the SOFC in a second operating period (period corresponding to step <408> where only the first fuel cell/SOFC is used to power load and the second fuel cell/PEMFC is not used/stopped, see Bailey: [0053], Fig. 4). See Bailey: [0033-0044], [0050-0055], Figs. 2-4. Note that a number of other prior art references similarly teach use of combination of SOFC and PEMFC to selectively power load and would similarly anticipate the claim limitations currently recited.
Re claim 7. Bailey teaches the fuel cell-based multiple power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the operating control system operates the load using both electricity produced by the PEMFC and electricity stored in an energy storage system (ESS) (energy storage devices <218>, see Bailey: [0038], Fig. 2) in the first operating period (see Bailey: [0054-0055], Fig. 4 regarding period corresponding to steps <414> where first and second fuel cells and energy storage provide power to loads together,).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey.
Re claim 2. Bailey teaches the fuel cell-based multiple power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the PEMFC receives hydrogen stored in a hydrogen tank as a fuel (see Bailey: [0036], [0041], Fig. 2 regarding second fuel cells/PEMFCs <214> using hydrogen stored in tank <238>), and the SOFC receives hydrogen obtained as a result of reforming any one of liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied natural gas, and methane gas as a fuel (see Bailey: [0034], Fig. 2 regarding first fuel cells/SOFCs <202> receiving hydrogen from reformed hydrocarbon/aviation fuel). Although Bailey does not explicitly specify the hydrocarbon/aviation fuel is one of the recites fuels, Official Notice is hereby taken that it is very well-known in the art of fuel cell systems and transportation systems that liquified petroleum gas, liquefied natural gas, and methane gas are known types of hydrocarbon fuels equivalently suitable for reforming into hydrogen for fuel cell operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/implement the system of Bailey such that the hydrocarbon/aviation fuel used is specifically one of the three recited fuels for purposes of providing known, equivalent hydrocarbon fuels that would predictably be capable of reforming to produce hydrogen for operation of fuel cells.
Claim(s) 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Mermelstein (US2017/0005357), further in view of Loison (US2013/0187448).
Re claim 3. Bailey teaches the fuel cell-based multiple power supply system according to claim 2, wherein the system comprises a plurality of fuel cell unit cell modules (first fuel cells/SOFCs <202> and regenerative fuel cells <232>, see Bailey: [0041], [0043], Fig. 2) and operated in a dual mode in which some of the unit cell modules are used as a fuel cell and some other of the unit cell modules are used an electrolyzer cell (see Bailey: [0033-0034], [0041], [0043], [0046-0047], [0050-0055], Figs. 2-4 regarding first fuel cells/SOFCs <202> operating as fuel cells to supply loads during normal operation and regenerative fuel cells operating as electrolyzer by converting electricity and water into hydrogen gas during normal operation). Bailey does not explicitly disclose the regenerative fuel cells being SOFCs operating as solid oxide electrolyzer cells (SOECs), nor does Bailey explicit discuss operation where all of the unit cell modules are used as fuel cells.
Mermelstein, however, teaches that it is known in the art of fuel cell-based multiple power supply systems for a regenerative/reversible fuel cells to specifically be implemented as SOFC with reversible capability operating as SOECs when regeneration of hydrogen fuel is needed or advantageous (see Mermelstein: [0005-0007], [0024], [0051], [0065], [0074-0075], Figs. 5-6). One of ordinary skill would appreciate that Mermelstein teaches a known, equivalent reversible/regenerative fuel cell technology that predictably is capable of functioning in the same manner as the regenerative fuel cells of Bailey. Additionally, Loison, further teaches that it is known in the art of fuel cell-based power supply systems that additional fuel cell modules capable of hydrogen generation via electrolyzer may also be operated in a fuel cell mode to ensure the fuel cell is ready in standby and maintained at operation temperatures (see Loison: [0108-0111], Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bailey to incorporate the teachings of Mermelstein and Loison by implementing the regenerative fuel cells using reversible SOFC for purposes of providing known equivalent regenerative fuel cell technology predictably able to generate hydrogen by receiving electricity and generate electricity when needed (see Mermelstein: [0005-0005], [0024], [0051], [0065], [0074-0075]), and further have the system controlled to operate the regenerative fuel cell to operate in fuel cell mode at times to produce standby electric energy to ensure the fuel cell is maintained at operation temperatures and prevent dormant failures (see Loison: [0111]). The combination would thereby suggest the system may at times operate in a fuel cell mode in which all of the unit cell modules are used as a fuel cell.
Re claim 4. Bailey in view of Mermelstein, further in view of Loison, teaches the fuel cell-based multiple power supply system according to claim 3, wherein the operating control system operates the SOFC in the dual mode and fills the hydrogen tank with hydrogen produced by the SOFC in a third operating period (see Bailey: [0041], Fig. 2 regarding regenerative fuel cell filling tank with hydrogen in regenerative mode, and discussion of claim 3 above regarding obviousness of SOFC dual mode).
Re claims 5-6. Bailey in view of Mermelstein, further in view of Loison, teaches the fuel cell-based multiple power supply system according to claim 4, wherein electricity stored in an energy storage system (ESS) is input to the unit cell modules operated as the solid oxide electrolyzer cell in the dual mode; wherein electricity stored in a super capacitor is input to the unit cell modules operated as the solid oxide electrolyzer cell in the dual mode (see Bailey: [0038], [0041-0042], [0047-0048], Figs. 2-3 regarding battery or super capacitor <218> providing power to regenerative loads/bus which can then be used by the regenerative fuel cells to produce hydrogen; see discussion of claim 3 above regarding obviousness of SOFC dual mode).
Re claim 8. Bailey in view of Mermelstein, further in view of Loison, teaches the fuel cell-based multiple power supply system according to claim 2, wherein the SOFC (regenerative fuel cell <232>; see discussion of claim 3 above regarding obviousness of implementation as a SOFC with SOEC mode and fuel cell mode, which may provide power to load while PEMFC is not operating in the second operating period as discussed in claim 1) is operated in any one of a fuel cell mode and a solid oxide electrolyzer cell mode, and the operating control system operates the SOFC in the fuel cell mode in the first operating period (see discussion of claim 3 above regarding obviousness of regenerative fuel cell able to operate as fuel cell to provide power to maintain operating temperatures, including during first operating period).
Re claim 9. Bailey in view of Mermelstein, further in view of Loison, teaches the fuel cell-based multiple power supply system according to claim 8, wherein the operating control system operates the SOFC in the solid oxide electrolyzer cell mode and fills the hydrogen tank with hydrogen produced by the SOFC in a third operating period (see Bailey: [0041], Fig. 2 regarding regenerative fuel cell filling tank with hydrogen in regenerative mode, during some operating period when appropriate).
Re claim 10. Bailey in view of Mermelstein, further in view of Loison, teaches the fuel cell-based multiple power supply system according to claim 9, wherein the operating control system operates the load using electricity stored in an energy storage system (ESS) (energy storage devices <218>) in the third operating period (see Bailey: [0038], [0041-0042], [0047-0048], [0054-0055], Figs. 2-4 regarding energy storage <218> providing power to regenerative loads/bus which can then be used by the regenerative fuel cells to produce hydrogen and also used to power other airplane loads).
Conclusion
In summary, it is recommended Applicant address the noted Objection and consider the cited prior art of record which suggests that multiple fuel-cell power systems selectively providing power from SOFC and PEMFC is generally known in the art, with general ability for SOFC systems to be reversible and operated as solid oxide electrolyzer cell also being known. If Applicant believes the particular arrangement of SOFC as plurality of unit cell modules capable of operating with all modules in fuel cell mode, all modules in electrolyzer mode, and in dual mode with some modules as fuel cell with others as SOEC (i.e. similar to claim 3 with further detail), would be nonobvious over the prior art, then it is recommended Applicant amend the claims to recite the features with explanation of nonobviousness over the prior art of record.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Suzuki (US2017/0346116) and Patel (US2018/0254498) similarly disclose combination PEMFC and SOFC power supply systems with respective power prioritization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A SHIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-7265. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DAVID A SHIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836