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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 21 are currently pending.
Claim 1 has been amended
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/07/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 05/14/2026
The examiner modified the rejection below to address claimed amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683) and in view of US 20200168935, hereinafter as ‘935.
Regarding claim 1, Ancimer et al teaches a system comprising:
power modules comprising stacks of fuel cells FCS (Fig. 4)
a compression system (CP1, CP2) configured to generate compressed air (para 41- 42];
an air conduit (gas line) configured to transfer compressed air from the compression system to the power modules (fig 4 para 41-42);
a heat exchanger HEX (A2E) configured to extract heat from cathode exhaust generated by the power modules [fig 4 Para 50 claim 18] ; and
an exhaust conduit (gas line) configured to transfer the cathode exhaust from the power modules to the heat exchanger [fig 4].
Ancimer et al teaches the claimed structure as set forth above, but Ancimer et al does not teach the power module as claimed.
‘935 teaches a system comprising a power module (hot box 100) comprising:
a catalytic partial oxidation (CPOx) reactor [fig 1A]
a first air inlet conduit fluidly connecting the air conduit to the CPOx reactor [fig 1A];
an anode exhaust cooler heat exchanger which is configured to heat inlet air with anode exhaust from the stacks [fig 1A];
a second air inlet conduit fluidly connecting the air conduit to the anode exhaust
cooler heat exchanger [fig 1A];
a first valve configured to provide air at a first flow rate through the first air inlet conduit to the CPOx reactor [fig 1A 2 para 28]; and
a second valve 282 configured to provide the air at a second flow rate through the second air inlet conduit to the anode exhaust cooler heat exchanger [fig 2 para 54 55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the power module of Ancimer et al to be the same of ‘935 for preventing coking [para 50] and since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
As for combination, a first valve configured to provide the compressed air at a first flow rate through the first air inlet conduit to the CPOx reactor; and a second valve configured to provide the compressed air at a second flow rate through the second air inlet conduit to the anode exhaust cooler heat exchanger.
Modified Ancimer et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Ancimer et al does not teach the second flow rate being greater than first flow rate.
‘935 teaches the flow rate being controlled to prevent from coking [para 50.
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify first and second flow rate of modified Ancimer et al to arrive the claimed range for preventing coking [para 50].
Regarding claim 7, modified Ancimer et al teaches the power module not including air blowers.
Regarding claim 21, modified Ancimer et al teaches the first valve is located on the first air inlet conduit between the compression system and the CPOx reactor; and the second valve is located on the second air inlet conduit between the compression system and the anode exhaust cooler heat exchanger [fig 1A para 28 54 55]
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683) and US 20200168935 as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Ko et al (PG Pub 20180151931).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ancimer et al teaches the compression system comprising air compressor as set forth above, but modified Ancimer et al does not teach the pressure tank as claimed.
Ko et al teaches system comprising plurality of compressor transferring air to plurality of air tanks which store air [fig 4 5 para 49-52].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the plurality of air tanks of Ko et al to the system of modified Ancimer et al such that the compressed air is stored in the tanks since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
As for combination, the compression system comprises: a pressure tank configured to store compressed air; and an air compressor configured to provide compressed air to the pressure tank.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ancimer et al teaches the compression system further comprises an air cooler ITC configured to cool compressed air provided from the compressor to the pressure tank [para 50], wherein at least one of the air coolers are configured to discharge condensed water as a separate product stream (WG1, WG2) [fig 4 para 50 66-67].
Regarding claim 4, modified Ancimer et al teaches the compression system further comprises an air filter configured to filter ambient air provided to the compressor [para 85].
Regarding claim 5, modified Ancimer et al teaches the tank being used to store cool air as in claim 2. Also, modified Ancimer et al teaches at least two air compressors configured to provide compressed air to the first pressure tank; and at least two air coolers (ITC and heat exchanger) configured to cool compressed air provided from the at least two compressors (CP1, CP2) to the first pressure tank [para 50].
Regarding claim 6, modified Ancimer et al teaches a second pressure tank to stored compressed air, at least two additional air compressors configured to provide compressed air to the second pressure tank, wherein the first and second pressure tanks are fluidly connected [fig 4 5 of Ko et al] (fig 3 4-5 of Ko et al shows plurality air tank being connected with plurality of compressors and they are connected to each other; thus it is considered that the first and second pressure tanks are fluidly connected).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683) and US 20200168935 and Ko et al (PG Pub 20180151931) and further in view of EP 3348936, hereinafter as ‘936.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ancimer et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified Ancimer et al does not teach the sound proof first room and second room as claimed.
‘936 teaches a compressor being housed in the sound proof room 30 for preventing noise leaking to the outside. Also, ‘936 teaches other electrical component being housed in a different room 17 (description section). It is noted that the sound proof box is considered to reduce from 20 to 400 decibels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the compressor of modified Ancimer et al to be in the sound proof box as taught by ‘936 for preventing leakage of sound. Also, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have power modules of modified Ancimer et al to be on the second room or box as taught by ‘936 for separating the components and the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
As for combination, the compression system is disposed in a sound-proofed first room configured toreduce noise generated by the compressors by at least 30 decibels; and the power modules are disposed in a second room different from the first room.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683) and US 20200168935 and Ko et al (PG Pub 20180151931) and EP 3348936 and further in view of US7972736 ,hereinafter as ‘736.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Ancimer et al teaches the claimed method as set forth above, but modified Ancimer et al does not teach heating the water on a ship.
‘736 teaches a fuel cell system being used on the ship (col 7 lines 50-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the system of modified Ancimer et al to be operated on a ship as taught by ‘736 since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
As for combination, the first room and the second room are located on a ship.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683) and US 20200168935 as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of and US20090017340, hereinafter as ‘340.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ancimer et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Ancimer et al does not teach first valve being restrictor valve.
‘340 teaches the valve being restrictor valve [para 10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the first valve of modified Ancimer et al to be the same of ‘340 since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ancimer et al teaches the power modules each comprise a system controller configured to control the first and second valves, such that: during start-up mode of the power system, a first amount of compressed air is provided to the CPOx reactor until the CPOx reactor is ignited, and then a larger second amount of the compressed air is provided to the CPOx reactor until the power system enters a steady-state mode; and during the steady-state mode, no air is provided to the CPOx reactor and a third amount of air is provided to the anode exhaust cooler, the third amount of air being larger than the second amount of air [para 26-70]/
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683) and and US 20200168935 as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of DE 102006003740 and US20180097246, hereinafter as ‘740, 246.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ancimer teaches there being inlet air with cathode exhaust from the stacks, but modified Acimer does not teaches the cathode recuperator heat exchanger and non-return valve as claimed.
‘740 teaches recuperator heat exchanger being used to heat the air exhausted by the cathode (description section)
'246 teaches a system comprising non-return valve [para 112].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the recuperator heat exchanger as taught by ‘740 to heat the air exhausted by the cathode as taught by modified Ancimer since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007). Also, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the non-return valve of ‘246 to the system of Ancimer et al for preventing the air flowing back to the cathode [para 112].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683) and US 20200168935 as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of WO 2013047843, hereinafter as ‘843.
Regarding claim 14, modified Ancimer et al teaches the heat exchanger extracting heat from the exhaust cathode as set forth above, but modified Ancimer et al does not teach the heat exchanger heat the water using exhausted heat.
‘843 teaches a system comprising a heat exchanger 130 where the heat exchanger 130 is connected to the hot water storage tank 210, and warms the water supplied from the hot water storage tank 210 by exhaust heat generated by the operation (power generation) of the SOFC 110 (descriptions section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the heat exchanger of modified Ancimer et al heating the water by using exhaust heat as taught by ‘843 since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/07/2026 are deemed moot in view of the following new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
