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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on July 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-20 were added by Applicant. Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 11-20 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102012007384A1 (“Hornburg”; citations taken from Applicant-provided machine translation).
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10, Hornburg teaches a fuel cell typically consists of a large number of individual PEM cells, which are stacked in the fuel cell to form a so-called fuel cell stack ([0003]). The fuel cell stack has an anode compartment and a cathode compartment. Air or a medium containing oxygen is typically supplied to the cathode compartment, and hydrogen or a medium containing hydrogen is supplied to the anode compartment. An anode circuit for a fuel cell includes a recirculation line which connects an output of the anode space of the fuel cell to the input of the anode space of the fuel cell, and which typically has a recirculation conveying device. An excess of fuel can be used through the anode circuit, since unused exhaust gas is transported from the anode space of the fuel cell back into the anode space of the fuel cell via the recirculation conveying device. It is then typically mixed with fresh fuel and fed to the anode compartment of the fuel cell ([0003]).
Hornburg teaches that in the anode circuit according to the invention it is provided that a valve device for shutting off a flow through the recirculation line is arranged in the recirculation line ([0008]). Regardless of how the recirculation conveying device is constructed, such a valve device can prevent recirculation extremely easily and efficiently by shutting off the recirculation line in certain operating situations ([0008]). The valve can be designed as a shut-off valve or flap ([0009]). The valve device is designed to be integrated into the recirculation conveying device ([0010]), and such a valve device can be placed very easily in the already existing connection area for the recirculation conveying device ([0010]).
Hornburg also teaches the valve device can be designed as a solenoid valve (reads on claim 3), as indicated in Fig. 1, or as a simple actively operable flap or the like ([0023]).
As to claims 2 and 7, Hornburg does not teach slide valves or seat valves. However, slide valves and seat valves are well known in the art to control the flow of fluids (liquids, gases, or steam).
As to claim 4, Hornburg depicts in Fig. 3 a double-sided arrow representing two-way movement which would be provided by a restoring mechanism.
As to claim 5, valves are known in the art to control flow of fluid from no flow to full flow/leakage.
As to claim 6, Hornburg teaches solenoid valves, as discussed above, which can be designed to be pressure compensated (their output flow can be proportional to the control signal even when upstream pressure changes).
As to claim 8, controlling flow / metering with a valve are well known in the art, as discussed above. Hornburg teaches the valve device is designed to be integrated into the recirculation conveying device ([0010]), and such a valve device can be placed very easily in the already existing connection area for the recirculation conveying device ([0010]).
As to claim 10, metal and plastic are well known in the art as materials useful for making valves.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornburg as applied above, and further in view of Poux et al. (“Poux”, US 2021/0108656).
Regarding claim 9, Hornburg does not teach pneumatic end position damping. However, Poux teaches using an end stop damping device (abstract) provides advantages such as wear reduction and noise reduction ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use end position damping to reduce wear and noise, as taught by Poux.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights