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 species D in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged.
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 9 recites the limitation "the first room and the second room" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim is treated depending on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683).
Regarding claim 1, Ancimer 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].
Regarding claim 7, Ancimer et al teaches the power module not including air blowers.
Regarding claim 18, Ancimer et al teaches a method comprising:
generating compressed air (fig 4 para 41-42)
providing the compressed air and fuel to fuel cell power modules (fig 4 para 41-42);
providing a cathode exhaust from the power modules to a heat exchanger (claim 18).
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) 2-6 , 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683) 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).
Regarding claim 20, Ancimer et al teaches the compression system further comprises an air cooler ITC configured to cool compressed air provided from the compressor and generating electrical power in the fuel cell power modules using fuel and compressed air, but Ancimer et al does not teaches the tank for storing cooled compressed air.
Ko et al teaches system comprising plurality of compressor transferring air to plurality of air tanks which store air [fig 3 4 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 air tanks of Ko et al to the system of modified Ancimer et al such that the compressed air is cooled and 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).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683) 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 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) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of US20200099076, hereinafter as ‘076 and US20090017340, hereinafter as ‘340.
Regarding claim 10, Ancimer et al teaches the claimed structure as set forth above, but Ancimer et al does not teach the power module as claimed.
‘076 teaches a system comprising
a catalytic partial oxidation (CPOx) reactor;
a first air inlet conduit fluidly connecting the air conduit to the CPOx reactor;
an anode exhaust cooler heat exchanger in which is configured to heat inlet air with anode exhaust from the stacks;
a second air inlet conduit fluidly connecting the air conduit to the anode exhaust
cooler heat exchanger;
a first valve configured to control air flow through the first air inlet conduit [fig 1A]
‘340 teaches a system comprising valve to control the flow to the fuel cell [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 power module of Ancimer et al to be the same of ‘885 for improving system response times and reduce system size and cost [para 13]. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the second valve of ‘340at the second inlet conduit as taught by modified Ancimer to control the air flow [para 10].
Regarding claim 11, modified Ancimer et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modfieid 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).
As for combination, the first valve comprises a flow restrictor valve which is configured to provide a first flow rate of air to the first air inlet conduit, and the second valve is configured to provide a second flow rate of air greater than the first flow rate of air to the second air inlet conduit.
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 33 of ‘076].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of DE 102006003740 and US20180097246, hereinafter as ‘740, 246.
Regarding claim 13, Ancimer teaches there being inlet air with cathode exhaust from the stacks, but 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 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) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of WO 2013047843, hereinafter as ‘843.
Regarding claim 14, Ancimer et al teaches the heat exchanger extracting heat from the exhaust cathode as set forth above, but 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 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).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancimer et al (PG pub 20220344683) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of WO 2013047843, hereinafter as ‘843 and US7972736 ,hereinafter as ‘736.
Regarding claim 19, Ancimer et al teaches the heat exchanger extracting heat from the exhaust cathode as set forth above, but 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 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).
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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights