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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 1 and 3 filed on 06/03/2026. Claim 11-14 remains withdrawn from consideration. Accordingly, claims 1-10 remain pending and are claims addressed and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “applicant's invention, as recited in the claims, is a passive, single integrated canister assembly - a single fluidic canister with a filter housing and a removable cap, where the filter chamber and expansion chamber coexist within the same canister body” and that “Trumper's expansion tank system 2 uses two separate housings for its first chamber 4 and second chamber 30, attached together”, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a passive, single integrated canister assembly) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, claim 1 does not preclude two separate housings combined to form a single ion exchange filter housing, thus the claim does not expressly require that the ion exchange filter housing assembly comprise a single fluidic canister.
In response to applicant’s argument that “…the fact that coolant may contain air does not make Trumper’s heat exchanger an air/fluid heat exchanger in the technical sense of a fluid-to-air radiator. Trumper only generically describes its heat exchanger 50, without details”, an air/fluid heat exchanger is not defined in applicant’s specification or in claim 2. As discussed in the Non-Final office actin mailed on 03/04/2026, Trumper discusses that the coolant flows through the heat exchanger (¶ 0002 and ¶ 0013). In ¶ 0002, Trumper also teaches that the coolant may contain air or other gases, suggesting that the heat exchanger may function with fluid and/or air. The air/fluid heat exchanger was interpreted based on the BRI since the air/fluid heat exchanger was not specifically defined by applicant.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Trumper’s access flap 18 is a simple service opening at the top of first chamber 4 - it is NOT a sealable cap defining an expansion chamber volume. See Trumper [0013]. - Trumper’s gas ports 34 and 40 are active gas transfer ports between two separate pressure chambers via compressor and valve - NOT air vent inlets on a cap connected to an expansion chamber receiving coolant overflow from external components. - Trumper’s second coolant port 6 is on a side surface of first chamber 4, NOT in an expansion chamber above the filter. See Trumper [0014]. - The integration of the expansion chamber, pressure relief valve, and vent inlets into a single removable cap has no counterpart anywhere in Trumper”, the cap was defined as the circled region shown below in Fig. 1, not only the access flap. The cap (circled region) includes a first and second flange that allow for the cap to be releasably clamped together. This reads on the cap being sealable defining an expansion chamber volume. The gas ports taught by Trumper are structurally capable of allowing gas into the cap which reads on air vent inlets on the cap connected to the expansion chamber receiving coolant overflow from external components. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With regards to Trumper’s coolant port 6 being on the side surface of the first chamber 4, labeled Fig. 1 below, shows that the port is in an expansion chamber above the filter. Finally, claim 1 does not explicitly claim a single removable cap. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s arguments that “Trumper’s coolant loop 54 is the main liquid coolant circuit - it is categorically not a dedicated gaseous vent line. Applicant's vent lines 16 and 46 are separate, dedicated gaseous fluid conduits that specifically channel gaseous overflow from the fuel cell stack outlet 14 and heat exchanger outlet 44 directly into the expansion chamber via air vent inlets 84 and 86 in the cap”, as shown in Fig. 2 below, Trumper’s coolant loop, which contains liquid as well as air or other gases (¶ 0002), channels flow from the fuel cell stack and heat exchanger outlet to the expansion chamber via port 8. Although, Trumper does not teach two inlets to the expansion chamber from the heat exchanger and the fuel cell stack, the claim does not require this limitation. Additionally, although there is a structural difference, inlet port 8 accomplishes the described function of inlets 84 and 86. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that Trumper has no structural equivalent to Applicant's removable cap - there is no analogous location in Trumper’s access flap to which one would rearrange a pressure relief valve.” and “ placing the pressure relief valve specifically in the removable cap that defines the expansion chamber is not a mere rearrangement - it is a purposeful design integration. The pressure relief valve in Applicant's cap directly serves the expansion chamber that receives coolant overflow, providing immediate pressure relief for that specific integrated volume. This functional integration is not suggested, taught, or rendered obvious by Trumper’s separate- housing architecture”, as discussed above Trumper teaches the removable cap of the claimed invention. Trumper also teaches that it is reasonable to include a pressure relief valve in wither the first or second chambers or bot to improve safety of the filter housing (¶ 0011). Trumper also teaches that the first chamber receives fluid, and it is well known in the art that gas will build up above the fluid, towards the top where the cap taught by Trumper is located, making it a reasonable position for a pressure relief valve. Trumper clearly discusses the possible inclusion of a pressure relief valve in any part of the ion exchange filter housing, which includes the cap. Thus, the premise of the “mere rearrangement” argument is factually founded. Additionally, the provision of immediate pressure relief mentioned is a means of improving the safety of the filter housing as suggested by Trumper.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 3 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.
With regards to claim 3, the claim recites “… a fluid canister...” This limitation renders the claim indefinite as the scope of the limitation is unclear. A fluid canister is already established in dependent claim 1, making it unclear if there is another fluid canister being referred to in claim 3. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting that “… the fluid canister…”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Trümper et al. (US 20230374932 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Trümper teaches a fluidic coolant system (liquid cooling system) for a fuel cell stack (heat producing device)(¶ 0001 and ¶ 0021). Trumper teaches that the fuel cell stack (52) is coupled to a heat exchanger (50) to make up an arrangement (48) (¶ 0032). Trümper teaches that the cooling system comprises: a fluidic pump (58) and a heat exchanger (56, heat dissipation device) (¶ 0032). Trümper teaches an expansion tank system (2) that includes a deionization filter (¶ 0028 - ¶ 0029). This expansion tank system reads on the ion exchange filter housing assembly. As shown in Fig. 2, Trümper teaches that a fluidic outlet of the heat exchanger is fluidly coupled to the fluidic pump (¶ 0032). Trümper also teaches that a fluidic inlet of the heat exchanger is fluidly coupled to the fuel cell stack (Fig. 2). Trümper teaches that the fluidic pump conveys coolant within the coolant loop (54) (¶ 0032 and Fig.2). In Fig. 2, Trümper shows that the heat exchanger (56) outlet is coupled to the pump which supplies coolant to the fuel cell stack via the heat exchanger (50) coupled to it and to the ion exchange filter housing via the dotted line and the fuel cell stack (¶ 0032). This reads on the pump being arranged to supply coolant from the heat exchanger to the fuel cell stack and the
PNG
media_image1.png
401
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ion exchange filter housing assembly. Fig. 2 is shown below.
Trumper also teaches that the ion exchange filter housing assembly comprises: a first chamber (4) that reads on the fluidic canister (¶ 0028 and Fig. 1). Trümper goes on to teach that the first chamber comprises a deionization filter that may be provided in a filter cartridge which reads on the filter housing (¶ 0012 and ¶ 0029). Trümper teaches an access flap (18) that comprises a cover (¶ 0029 and Fig. 1). The cap is read as the region above this access flap as shown in the circled region labeled in Fig. 1. Trümper teaches that the cap includes a first flange and the filter housing includes a second flange that corresponds to the first flange to be releasably clamped together with the first flange (¶ 0029 and Fig. 1). This reads on the cap being sealably assembled onto the filter housing. The inner portion of the first chamber taught by Trümper reads on the inner chamber. This inner chamber includes a filter chamber which is read as the inner portion of the filter cartridge Trümper discusses in ¶ 0012. The expansion chamber is interpreted as an area above the filter chamber as shown in Fig. 1 below. In ¶ 0014, Trümper teaches that air is separated from the coolant and is collected in the upper part of the first chamber. The expansion chamber taught by Trümper is capable of receiving and retaining coolant overflow from the fuel cell stack and heat exchanger. As discussed earlier and shown in Fig. 2 above, the coolant is supplied to the ion exchange filter housing and the expansion chamber via the coolant loop which includes a dotted line. Thus, the expansion chamber taught by Trumper reads on the expansion chamber being arranged to receive and retain coolant overflow from the fuel cell stack and the heat exchanger via vent lines fluidly connecting the fuel cell stack and the heat exchanger to the ion exchange filter housing assembly. Fig. 1 shown
PNG
media_image2.png
562
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
below.
With regards to claim 2, Trümper teaches that the coolant is a liquid that may contain
air or other gas (¶ 0002 and ¶0013). As discussed earlier, Trümper also teaches that the coolant goes through the heat exchanger (¶ 0002), making the heat exchanger an air/fluid heat exchanger.
With regards to claim 3, as discussed above, Trümper teaches that the ion exchange filter housing assembly (expansion tank system (2)) comprises: a first chamber (4) that reads on the fluidic canister (¶ 0028 and Fig. 1). Trümper goes on to teach that the first chamber comprises a deionization filter that may be provided in a filter cartridge which reads on the filter housing (¶ 0012 and ¶ 0029). Trümper teaches an access flap (18) that comprises a cover (¶ 0029 and Fig. 1). The cap is read as the region above this access flap as shown in the circled region labeled in Fig. 1. The inner portion of the first chamber taught by Trümper reads on the inner chamber. This inner chamber includes a filter chamber which is read as the inner portion of the filter cartridge Trümper discusses in ¶ 0012. As mentioned earlier, the area above the filter chamber, as shown in Fig. 1 reads on expansion chamber. Trümper teaches an ion exchange filter (16); a fluidic inlet port (8); a fluidic outlet port (6); a first air vent inlet (40); and a second air vent inlet (34) (¶ 0028 - ¶ 0030 and Fig.1). Trümper teaches that the ion exchange filter (16) is disposed within the filter chamber of the inner chamber (¶ 0012, ¶ 0029 and Fig.1). Trümper also teaches that the ion exchange filter may be provided in the form of a filter cartridge that is placeable into and removeable from the first chamber (¶ 0012). This reads on the ion exchange filter being arranged as a removable cartridge that is disposed within the filter chamber of the inner chamber. Trumper also shows, in Fig. 1, that the expansion chamber is formed within the fluidic canister above the filter chamber. Trümper goes on to teach that the fluidic inlet port is arranged on the fluidic canister on a first side (12) of the ion exchange filter (¶ 0028 and Fig. 1). Trümper teaches that the fluidic outlet port is arranged on the fluidic canister in the expansion chamber on a second side (10) of the ion exchange filter (¶ 0028 and Fig. 1). In Fig. 1, Trümper shows that the first air vent inlet and the second air vent inlet are arranged on the cap. Trümper teaches that the gas that accumulates in the expansion chamber can be fed to the second chamber which is where the air vent inlets are located (¶ 0013). This means that the first and second air vent inlets are fluidly connected to the expansion chamber. Trümper goes on to teach that the filter housing assembly (2) may include an access flap (18) at the cap (cover, 22) which allows for the insertion and removal of the ion exchange filter (¶ 0013 and ¶ 0029). This reads on the cap being sealably assemblable onto the filter housing and the ion exchange filter cartridge being removable from the filter chamber (inner chamber) when the cap is disassembled from the filter housing. Fig. 1 is shown above.
With regards to claim 4, Trümper teaches that the filter housing (4) and second chamber are formed in separate housings and then attached together to form the filter housing assembly (expansion tank system) (¶ 0019). Trümper teaches that the filter housing assembly may be formed in different shapes to match available space (¶ 0019). Fig. 2 shows an embodiment where the filter housing (4) is formed as a prismatic device.
With regards to claim 7, as shown in Fig. 2 above and discussed in ¶ 0032, Trümper teaches that the filter house assembly (2) is fluidically connected to the fuel stack via the coolant loop (54) and the heat exchanger coupled to the fuel stack. This reads on the first air vent inlet being fluidly connected to the fuel cell stack as the filter housing assembly (2) includes the first air vent inlet (Fig. 1). The coolant loop allows for the fluidic connection as it is connected to the filter housing assembly of the fluidic coolant system.
With regards to claim 8, as discussed earlier, Trümper teaches that the filter house assembly (2) is fluidically connected to the fuel stack via the coolant loop (54) and the heat exchanger coupled to the fuel stack (¶ 0032 and Fig. 2). This reads on the second air vent inlet being fluidly connected to the heat exchanger as the filter housing assembly (2) includes the second air vent inlet (Fig. 1). The coolant loop allows for the fluidic connection as it is connected to the filter housing assembly of the fluidic coolant system.
With regards to claim 9, Trümper teaches that the cap includes a first flange and the filter housing includes a second flange that corresponds to the first flange to be releasably clamped together with the first flange (¶ 0029 and Fig. 1). This reads on the cap being sealably assemblable onto the filter housing. As shown in Fig. 1 and discussed in ¶ 0012 , the ion exchange filter (16) is arranged within the filter chamber of the inner chamber when the cap is sealably assembled onto the filter housing. Trümper also teaches that the ion exchange filter may be provided in the form of a filter cartridge that is placeable into and removeable from the first chamber (¶ 0012). Trümper goes on to teach that the filter housing assembly (2) may include an access flap (18) at the cap (cover,22) which allows for the insertion and removal of the ion exchange filter (¶ 0013 and ¶ 0029). This reads on the ion exchange filter being removable from the inner chamber when the cap is disassembled from the filter housing.
With regards to claim 10, Trümper teaches the fluidic coolant system of c claim 3, wherein the fluidic outlet port (6) of the ion exchange filter housing assembly is fluidly connected to a fluidic inlet of the fluidic pump (¶ 0032 and Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trümper et al. (US 20230374932 A1).
With regards to claim 5, as discussed earlier, Trümper teaches that the filter housing may be arranged in different shapes (¶ 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to arrange the filter housing in a shape such as a cylinder as the as the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With regards to claim 6, Trümper teaches that it is reasonable to include a pressure release valve in either the first or second chambers or both to improve the safety of the filter housing (¶ 0011). As discussed earlier, Trumper teaches the first chamber, which comprises the filter and the expansion chambers, as well as the fluidic inlet and outlet ports (¶ 0028 - ¶ 0029 and Fig. 1). Trumper teaches that this first chamber is provide to receives coolant (fluid) (¶ 0028). Trümper does not specifically teach that the pressure relief valve is arranged in the cap. However, as the first chamber is designed to receive the fluid, it would be more reasonable to arrange the pressure relief valve in the second chamber where the cap is. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to arrange the pressure relief valve taught by Trümper in the cap (second chamber) as the as the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
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 HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights