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
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/11/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 08/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be a serious burden to examine both Groups I and II. This is not found persuasive because the instant application is filed under 371 and burden is not a criteria for determination of lack of unity. Rejoinder will be considered upon indication of allowable subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 5 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 5 states in part, “wherein a metal-sheet recombination cell is arranged between the fuel cells and the recombination fuel cell, the membrane of the recombination fuel cell being replaced in the metal-sheet recombination cell by a metal sheet”. First, the claim refers to “metal-sheet recombination cell” but appears to compare this “cell” to the recombination fuel cell of claim 1. Is the metal-sheet recombination cell a “fuel cell”? If so, the claim would be clarified by adding –fuel-- before “cell” in line 2. Based upon the discussion in [0042] and Figure 2, the metal-sheet recombination cell is interpreted as a fuel cell. Second, the claim refers to replacement of a membrane with a metal-sheet, however this amounts to a method step and does not clearly indicate the structure of the metal-sheet recombination cell. The step of replacing is not seen to mean that no membrane can be present in the metal-sheet recombination cell, only that a metal-sheet need be present.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0248369 (De Vaal) in view of US 2012/0114980 (Lundblad).
De Vaal discloses a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack (120) which is considered to inherently comprise of a plurality of fuel cells that are electrically and mechanically connected. The term amalgamated is not seen to require additional structural connection other than that which is conventional to a fuel cell stack and is understood to mean the provision of multiple fuel cells in a stack. A residual gas treatment device (recombiner 130) comprises a fuel cell having a catalyst (226, 228) and membrane (260) and is located downstream and outside of the fuel cells stack as shown in Figure 1 [0055-0058]. De Vaal does not disclose the power circuit used for the recombiner. Lundblad discloses electrochemical means for pre-burning residual gas during start up where the means for pre-burning is a fuel cell [0027, 0035-0036] and electronic circuitry is provided to switch operation of the cells between operating the pre-burner fuel cell and the fuel cell assembly (stack). Absent a showing of an unexpected result, it would have been an obvious design choice to provide separate control, i.e. separate circuits, for the pre-burner fuel cell/s and the fuel cell assembly as the pre-burner fuel cell (4) is provided with a separate means for short circuiting and is operated separately from the fuel cell assembly and for distinct processes.
Regarding claim 2, De Vaal discloses the recombination fuel cell is outside the stack, however, Lundblad discloses that it is known to provide a recombination fuel cell integrated with a fuel cell stack such that the means of pre-burning is implemented as one of the power generating cells in the fuel cell assembly (5) [0049]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the recombination fuel cell of De Vaal in the fuel cell stack as this configuration is suggested by Lindblad and such a structure would require provide an integrated structure requiring less space than providing a separate structure.
Regarding claim 3, as noted above, De Vaal discloses the recombination fuel cell is downstream of the fuel cell stack.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0248369 (De Vaal) in view of US 2012/0114980 (Lundblad) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of CA 3142075 (Braunecker)
De Vaal as modified above does not disclose a measuring device for voltage and/or current integrated into the recombination fuel cell or connected to the recombination fuel cell. Braunecker discloses that voltametric measurement of a fuel cell can be used to ascertain hydrogen excess (abstract). The evaluation device 36 of system 30 measures voltage and is connected to fuel cell module (1) (page 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a measuring device such as that of Braunecker in connection with the recombination fuel cell of De Vaal to ascertain hydrogen excess. While Braunecker does not describe a recombination fuel cell, hydrogen is present in the recombination fuel cell, thus detection of the hydrogen or excess thereof would have been obvious and achievable using the measuring means of Braunecker.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0248369 (De Vaal) in view of US 2012/0114980 (Lundblad) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of KR 20140146641 (Mueller).
De Vaal discloses that the recombiner may comprise more than one fuel cell and may comprise a fuel cell stack [0060] and further discloses wherein a membrane may not be present [0061]. If the membrane is not present, the catalyst is present on the anode and cathode. The presence of the catalyst as shown in Figure 2 is considered a metal sheet inasmuch as a sheet is considered a layer and the catalyst is a metal. In addition, Mueller discloses recombination catalysts (such as Pd) based on metal sheets with pure inorganic coatings are known and reduces pressure drop and gas velocity in the recombiner. It would have been obvious to use a recombination fuel cell with a metal sheet catalyst as disclosed by Mueller to reduce pressure drop and gas velocity and to provide it upstream from less robust membranes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
TW 201427163 (Cheng) discloses a recombiner configured in a fuel cell stack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 5712723066. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights