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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10 and 20 drawn to a power system classified in H01M8/04164.
II. Claims 11-19, drawn to a method of operating a fuel cell power system, classified in H01M8/04164.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions Group I and Group II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the process of Group II can be used with a power system without Group I’s (claims 1-10 and 20) recycling manifold and a fuel supply manifold and could be used with conduits not connected to recycling manifolds and fuel supply manifolds. Further in the instant case, the process of Group II can be used with a power system without Group I’s flow control valves and a system controller (claims 7-10) and could instead be manually operated.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
MPEP 808.02 (c): The differences between the product and the method would require different search strings and strategies across different fields of endeavor and thus is a serious search burden to the Examiner. Additionally, it is likely the closest prior art for Group I might not be the same as Group II.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Leon Radomsky on February 24, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10 and 20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The instant specification recites first and second heater conduits as reference numbers 252A and 252B, respectively, [PGPub 0039, 0054, 0079] which are also recited as reference numbers 152A and 152B throughout the specification and in the figures. Since 252A and 252B are not shown in any figures or recited otherwise, this appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites “The system of claim” yet all other claims recite “The power system of claim”. For consistency, Claim 20 should be amended to “The power system of claim”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4 and 9 are 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 4 recites the limitation “the recycling module” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should be amended to “a recycling module”. Correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the main fuel inlet" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should be amended to “a main fuel inlet”. Correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. [US20160072146A1], hereinafter Sridhar.
Regarding Claim 1, Sridhar discloses a power system [Sridhar abstract and throughout, power system 60; power system 100], comprising:
power modules [Sridhar abstract, 0025-0042, 0048, 0050, 0060-0097, and throughout, Figs. 1-6, first embodiment modules 1 [Figs. 1-2], second embodiment modules 61 [Fig. 5], or third, fourth, fifth, or sixth embodiment modules formed with fuel cell stack 101 [Figs. 6-8] as provided in [0048] all read on the claimed modules] that each comprise a heater [Sridhar 0017-0021, 0060-0097 and throughout, Figs. 1-6, heat exchangers 13/15 for modules with fuel stack 9 [Fig. 2] and/or heat exchangers 121 with fuel stack 101 [Figs. 6-8]] and a stack of fuel cells that generate a fuel exhaust [Sridhar abstract, 0017-0042, 0060-0097 and throughout, Figs. 1-6, stacks 9 [Fig. 2] or stacks 101 [Figs. 6-8] with exhaust 23];
a condenser configured to remove water from the fuel exhaust [Sridhar 0057-0058, 0071-0083, and throughout, Fig. 6, condenser 113] to generate recycled fuel [Sridhar embodiment described in [0050-0097, Fig. 6 and throughout];
a recycling manifold configured to receive the fuel exhaust from the power modules and to transfer the fuel exhaust to the condenser [Sridhar 0017, 0031-0048, 0048-0092, Figs. 5, 6 and throughout, Sridhar does not explicitly teach a recycling manifold; however, Sridhar teaches recycling of fuel exhaust 0048-0092 and teaches fuel cell power modules with internal or external manifolding [0017]. Further, Sridhar’s second embodiment shown in Fig. 5 has the power modules 61 separated from the fuel processing unit 63. To distribute both fresh and recycled hydrogen to each of the power modules 61 for the third embodiment taught in 0048-0092 would require a recycling manifold as a part of fuel processing unit 63. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sridhar’s teachings about an interior or exterior manifolds with the second embodiment of power system 60 combined with system 100 of the third embodiment where the flow line components of Sridhar’s recycling module (region of Fig. 6 indicated below) for each of the modules of system 100 read on a recycling manifold. Further, Sridhar explicitly teaches the embodiments can be combined [Sridhar 0048], thus a recycling manifold would be obvious from the teachings of Sridhar, which the skilled artisan would expect would provide the benefit of efficiently use space within the power system. Combining the embodiments merely requires rearrangement of parts, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 VI, C, and/or duplication of parts, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 VI, B.];
a recycle blower configured to pressurize the recycled fuel output from the condenser [Sridhar 0056, 0072-0082, and throughout, Fig. 6, blower 109 or 209 read on the claimed recycle blower]; and
a fuel supply manifold configured to provide fresh fuel, or a mixture of the fresh fuel and the recycled fuel, to the power modules [Sridhar 0056-0096, 0017, Figs. 2,6 and throughout, Sridhar teaches a fuel manifold [0017, Fig. 2]. Further, Fig. 6 of the third embodiment with system 100 shows an anode recycling stream from outlet 207 of valve 201, an additional fuel recycling stream from blower 109, and a third fuel stream combining at a valve shown by a triangle on fuel inlet line 29, which reads on a fuel manifold.].
The rejection above is an obviousness type rejection since Sridhar does not explicitly teach a recycling manifold in a single embodiment; however, the combination of Sridhar’s embodiments reads on the claim limitations since Sridhar teaches manifolds for connecting stacks, which can be applied to modules of system 100 as describe above.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Interpretation of Sridhar’s recycling manifold
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sridhar discloses the power system of claim 1, further comprising at least one cabinet housing the power modules [Sridhar 0034-0044, Fig. 5 and throughout, As combined in claim 1, the combined first, second, and third embodiments, cabinet 62 reads on the claimed one cabinet.] wherein the condenser is disposed outside of the at least one cabinet housing the power modules [Sridhar 0034-0044, Sridhar discloses the fuel processing unit 63, which would be expected to house the condenser 113 as part of the fuel processing/reformation system (0034)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sridhar’s embodiment with separate cabinets for the power modules 61 (fuel stacks, heaters, and optionally the reformer which can be part of 61 or 63) [Sridhar 0034] for the predictable result of a power system which supports moving, repairing or servicing the components of the power system separately for ease of service [Sridhar 0036-0037].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Sridhar discloses the power system of claim 1, further comprising:
separate rows of cabinets that each house a number of the power modules [Sridhar 0031-0043 and throughout, Figs. 2, 5, As combined in claim 1, each of the containers of modules 61 (for example a base and dome housing several stacks like Fig. 2 with heaters and with or without reformer 37 [0032-0034]) shown in Fig. 5 reads on separate rows of cabinets each housing a number of power modules]; and
a recycling module enclosure disposed outside of the rows of cabinets and housing the condenser and the recycle blower [Sridhar 0034-0044, Fig. 5, Sridhar discloses the fuel processing unit 63 with enclosure 67 as the fuel processing reformation system [0034-0036, Fig. 5], which would be expected to house the condenser 113 and recycle blowers 109/209 as part of the fuel processing/reformation system (0034)], wherein the recycling manifold [as described in claim 1 above] fluidly connects the power modules of each row of cabinets to a recycling module [As described for the combined first, second, and third embodiments as provided in claim 1 above, the recycling manifold would be required to be fluidly connected to each of the power modules 61 with the components of the recycling module (as indicated in claim 1 and below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sridhar’s embodiment with separate rows of cabinets for the power modules 61 (fuel stacks, heaters with a base and dome [0032]), and optionally the reformer which can be part of 61 or 63) [Sridhar 0034] for the predictable result of a power system which supports moving, repairing or servicing the components of the power system separately for ease of service [Sridhar 0036-0037].
PNG
media_image2.png
392
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, modified Sridhar discloses the power system of claim 1, further comprising a hydrogen fuel supply that is fluidly connected to the fuel supply manifold by a fuel supply conduit, wherein the fresh fuel comprises hydrogen (H2) received from the fuel supply and the recycled fuel comprises dewatered hydrogen [Sridhar 0034, 0048-0049 and throughout embodiment 0048-0092, Fig. 6, Sridhar teaches hydrogen as fuel [0034] throughout and the broadest reasonable interpretation of Sridhar is the upper line in Fig. 6 as indicated below is the fuel supply conduit connected to the fuel supply manifold for any of the interpretations of fuel supply manifold as described in claim 1. Further, Sridhar teaches the anode recycling system 0048-0092, which provides recycled hydrogen with the water removed at the condenser 113/water separator 115 [0057].
PNG
media_image3.png
335
208
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, modified Sridhar discloses the power system of claim 5, wherein:
the stack comprises a solid oxide fuel cell stack[ Sridhar 0003, 0012, 0048-0050]; and
the recycle blower is configured to pressurize the recycled fuel to provide the pressurized recycled fuel to the fuel supply manifold [Sridhar 0072, The broadest reasonable interpretation of the blower controllably provides the desired amount of fuel exhaust stream into the fuel inlet stream reads on the claim limitation.]. Sridhar does not explicitly teach a pressure ranging from about 1 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to about 2 psig; however, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the amount of pressure required would be a result effective variable depending on the specific operation conditions (start up, steady-state operation, shutdown) and the design of a fuel cell. If the pressure is below the range required for the specified operational conditions and design, there will not be enough hydrogen to operate the fuel cell stack properly. If the pressure is above the range required, the skilled artisan would expect that excess pressure could cause damage to fuel cell components, result in unsafe operation, or result in an imbalance in the amount of fuel and air required for the operational conditions. Determining the workable range merely requires routine experimentation in consideration of the discussed factors, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II,A. "[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."
Regarding Claim 20, modified Sridhar discloses the power system of claim 1, further comprising:
a system exhaust conduit configured to collect cathode exhaust output from the power modules [Sridhar 0050-0092, Fig. 6, exhaust lines 27 through heat exchanger 127 through exhaust line 35 read on a system exhaust conduit as claimed]; and
a water drain conduit fluidly connecting the condenser to the system exhaust conduit [Sridhar Fig. 6 provides a water drain conduit 117 for condenser 113 but provides a separate outlet for exhaust products after an optional catalytic burner [Sridhar 0054] and does not fluidly connect the condenser to the system exhaust conduit through drain 117. However, modifying Sridhar’s power system such that the water drain conduit 117 fluidly connects the condenser 113 to the system exhaust conduit as described merely requires rearrangement of parts per 2144.04 VI, C, which would be obvious since the water drain, condenser, and system exhaust conduits can all still provide their intended functions with such rearrangement.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar, as provided for claim 1 above, in further view of Joos et al. [US20200075974A1], hereinafter Joos.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Sridhar discloses the power system of claim 1, wherein the system lacks a mass flow controller or a mass flow control valve [Sridhar does not disclose mass flow controllers or valves.]. Sridhar does not explicitly teach controlling the pressure of the fuel and thus does not teach a pressure regulator configured to control a pressure of the fresh fuel or a pressure of the mixture of the fresh fuel and the recycled fuel provided to the power modules. Joos discloses a pressure regulator 22 for maintaining the pressure of hydrogen on the anode side of the fuel cell in the range of 0.1 psi to 5 psi [Joos 0016]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Joos teaching about a hydrogen pressure regulator to the power system of Sridhar as provided in claim 1 by adding a pressure regulator in the line 29 after the valve indicated by a triangle in Fig. 6 and before the fuel cell stack 101 for the predictable result of a controlled hydrogen pressure pressurizing the fuel line feeding the anode at a predetermined pressure based on the operating status of the fuel cell power system [Joos 0016-0019].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar, as provided for claim 1 and 5 above, in further view of Nguyen et al [US20100047634A1], hereinafter Nguyen.
Regarding Claim 7, Sridhar discloses the power system of claim 5, wherein the power system further comprises:
flow control valves disposed on the fuel supply manifold [Sridhar 0026, Sridhar discloses valves may be in the fuel inlet line and may be turned off electronically or manually to stop the flow of fuel through an inlet line to individual modules.] and the recycling manifold [Sridhar 0052-0056, 0069-0072, 0080-0097, Sridhar discloses valves such as 201, 108, which would be considered valves of the recycling system.],; and
a system controller configured to control the flow control valves based on an operating mode of the power system [Sridhar 0026, 0039, 0070-0071, 0081-0093, Sridhar discloses use of a computer or control terminal or panel to control the modules [0039] and electronic or computer controlling of valves for flowing fuel [0026, 0071, 0088], which reads on a system controller configured to control flow control valves. Further, Sridhar discloses computer control of blowers, compressors, fuel splitters, and determining hydrogen separation and control for fuel cell operational modes [0070, 0081-0093]. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Sridhar reads on the claimed configuration. If not, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sridhar’s teachings about a control panel for electronically controlling the operation of valves to Sridhar’s teachings about different fuel cell operational modes for the predictable result of a controller for controlling the operation of valves to meet the operational requirements of the fuel cell operational modes.]. Sridhar does not explicitly teach a start-up mode and a steady-state mode, and thus does not teach
wherein: during a start-up mode, the system controller is configured to control the flow control valves, such that the fuel supply manifold supplies the fresh fuel to the heaters; and
during a full power steady-state mode, the system controller is configured to control the flow control valves, such that the fuel supply manifold supplies the mixture of the fresh fuel and the recycled fuel to the stacks and that no fuel is supplied to the heaters.
Nguyen teaches an electrical power generating fuel cell system [Nguyen 0003 and throughout]
wherein: during a start-up mode, flow control valve such that the fuel supply manifold supplies the fresh fuel to the heater 30 [Nguyen 0114, 0140, Fig. 6, The flow control valve 106 directs fuel flow throughout manifold line 27 to heater 30 in the fuel processing unit 15.]; and
during a full power steady-state mode, flow control valves such that the fuel supply manifold supplies the mixture of fresh fuel and recycled fuel to the stacks and that no fuel is supplied the heaters is a mixture of the fresh fuel and the recycled fuel to the stacks and that no fuel is supplied to the heater [Nguyen 0114, 0143, Fig. 6, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Nguyen is the flow control valve 106 directs flow to reformer 32 in the fuel processing unit 15 instead of the heater 30. This flow includes fresh fuel 17 from supply 16 through line 29 and recycled fuel supply from anode exhaust 38 regenerated through 36 and heater 30 to heater exhaust 35 back to supply manifold line 29 which is configured to flow through boiler 34, reformer 32 through 39 to the anode 43.]. Further, Nguyen teaches a system controller CPU for operation of fuel system components electronically [Nguyen 0160-0164], which the skilled artisan would understand can be used to operate flow control valves. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Nguyen’s teaching about a fuel processor with an integrated boiler, reformer, heater, and regenerator which uses the heater for startup as discussed above in modified Sridhar’s fuel cell power system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Nguyen’s teachings about the use of a fuel processing system with Sridhar’s fuel cell power system with power modules as described in claims 1 and 5 above for the predictable result of bringing the fuel cell modules up to operating temperature prior to introducing pure fuel to the fuel cells during start up to reduce the startup time [Nguyen 0098] required for the fuel cell modules. Further, which this combination, it would be obvious to combine Sridhar’s use of a controller for electronic operation of flow control valves [Sridhar 0026, 0039, 0070-0071, 0081-0093] or alternatively Nguyen’s teaching [Nguyen 0160-0164] for operating the valves for the start-up mode valve configuration and the steady-state operation with the predictable result of a power system where the start-up and steady state modes are controlled by a system controller. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Sridhar discloses the power system of claim 7 wherein the heaters each comprise a heating fuel inlet and an ignition fuel inlet fluidly connected to the fuel supply manifold [Nguyen Fig. 6, as applied to claim 7 above. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Nguyen Fig. 6 is a fuel processor 15 has an inlet for the heater zone 30, which reads on ignition fuel inlet, and an inlet for the boiler zone 34, which reads on heating fuel inlet, both of which are connected tot the fuel supply manifold with supply 16, connector 23, line 25, pump 104, three-way valve 106, lines 29 and 27, etc.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Nguyen’s teaching about an ignition fuel inlet and heating fuel inlet with modified Sridhar for the predictable result of a power system with a fuel processing system for bringing the fuel cell modules up to operating temperature to reduce the startup time [Nguyen 0098] for the fuel cell modules. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar in further view of Nguyen, as provided for claims 7-8 above, and in further view of Cui et al. [US2009155640A1, as provided on the IDS dated 6/18/2024], hereinafter Cui.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Sridhar discloses the power system of claim 8 but is silent to a purge conduit as claimed. Cui discloses a fuel cell system comprising a purge conduit [Cui 0104, purge conduit 193/197] which fluidly connects the fuel supply conduit to a recycling conduit [Cui 0100-0104, Fig. 2, fuel supply conduit 167 and recycling manifold recycling manifold 169/173/101/174/181/152/151/163] which fluidly connects the recycling manifold to the condenser [Cui 0100-0104, Fig. 2, recycling manifold 169/173/101/174/181/152/151/163 to condenser 175],
wherein during the start-up mode, the stack is purged of air by the recycle blower providing the fresh fuel to the stack through the recycle conduit and a main fuel inlet [Cui 0081, 0104-0105, main fuel inlet 109, With purge valves 189/191 open, the first and/or second gas streams can provide hydrogen purge gas through the fuel cell 105 with support of compressor 161, which performs the same function as Sridhar’s recycle blower (see claim 1 blower 109/209). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Cui’s hydrogen purge conduit for purging air/ carbon oxides from the fuel cell prior to operation with modified Sridhar’s power system for the predictable result of removing impurities from the anode compartment prior to operation [Cui 0104-0105]. Further, which this combination, it would be obvious to combine Sridhar’s use of a controller for electronic operation of flow control valves [Sridhar 0026, 0039, 0070-0071, 0081-0093] for operating the valves for the start-up mode valve configuration with the predictable result of a power system where the start-up mode is controlled by a system controller. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar in view of Nguyen, as provided in claim 8, and in further view of Fellows et al. [US20070207367A1], hereinafter Fellows.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Sridhar discloses the power system of claim 8, further comprising a first flow control orifice located between the fuel supply manifold and the ignition fuel inlet, wherein:
the flow control orifice is configured to provide a lower flow rate of the fresh fuel to the ignition fuel inlet than is provided to the heating fuel inlet [Nguyen 0052, As combined in claim 8, Nguyen teaches the use of flow restriction for line 27, which reads on a first flow control orifice between the fuel supply manifold and the ignition fuel inlet. Nguyen does not explicitly teach the flow rate is lower for the ignition fuel inlet than the heating fuel inlet; however, the skilled artisan would know this would be dependent on the design of the fuel process unit and would thus be a result effective variable. For example, it the volume occupied by the heater portion is smaller than the boiler/reformer unit, it would be expected that a lower flow would be required for the heater portion and thus less flow would be supplied to the ignition flow unit. Further, it would be expect that the volume of flow required for producing hydrogen in the boiler/reformer for producing power for the fuel cell would be more than is required to operate the startup heater. Determining the workable range of flow for each of the ignition fuel inlet and heating fuel inlet merely requires routine experimentation in view of balancing the required amount of fuel for operational heating of the fuel cell and producing energy through the fuel cell. Such experimentation would be obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.] ;
during the start-up mode, the system controller is configured to control the flow control valves, such that the fuel supply manifold initially supplies the fresh fuel to the heaters through the ignition fuel inlet [Nguyen 0114, 0140, Fig. 6, The flow control valve 106 directs fuel flow throughout manifold line 27 to heater 30 in the fuel processing unit 15.] to ignite a fuel and air mixture in the heaters [Nguyen 0054-0056, Fig. 6, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Fig. 6 is that air is provided to heater 30 via line 33 for combustion.], and then supplies the fresh fuel to the heaters through the heating fuel inlet to heat the power system [Nguyen 0054-0056, 0114 Nguyen teaches fresh fuel is supplied to boiler 34 for heating the fuel processing unit 15, which provides efficient heating for fuel cell system 10.];
during a low power steady-state mode, the system controller is configured to control the flow control valves, such that the fuel supply manifold supplies the fresh fuel or the mixture of the fresh fuel and the recycled fuel to the stacks through a main fuel inlet and to the heaters through the heating fuel inlet to heat the power system [Nguyen 0114, 0153, 0054-0056, During standard operation the flow control valve 106 provides fuel to main fuel inlet 29, where line 29 includes fresh fuel and recycled fuel as described in claim 7 above and to heaters in the fuel processor as described in claim 7 above to heat system 10. Such configuration reads on the claimed low power steady-state mode.].
Sridhar modified by Nguyen does not teach a shutdown mode as claimed.
Fellows teaches a fuel cell power system [Fellows abstract and throughout] wherein during a shutdown mode, the fuel supply manifold supplies the fresh fuel through a flow control orifice and through the main fuel inlet at a lower rate than during the full power steady-state mode [Fellows 0042 Fellows teaches a flow control device 408 as the orifice for the main fuel inlet[Fellows 0042, Fig. 4], which is closed to minimize fuel consumption during shut down [Fellows 0042, Fig. 4]. Further, Fellows teaches other embodiments of reducing fuel flow during showdown [Fellows 0046, Fig. 7; 0048-0052, Fig. 8]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to combine Fellows teaching about the use of a flow control orifice to reduce the flow of fuel to a lower rate than during the full power steady-state mode with modified Sridhar’s fuel cell power system of claim 8 by providing flow control devices in line 29 [Sridhar Fig. 6] for preparing the fuel cell system for shut down. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Fellows with modified Sridhar as described for the predictable result of shutting down a fuel cell system from an operating condition. Further, which this combination, it would be obvious to combine Sridhar’s use of a controller for electronic operation of flow control valves [Sridhar 0026, 0039, 0070-0071, 0081-0093] or alternatively Nguyen’s teaching [Nguyen 0160-0164] for operating the valves for the predictable result of a power system where the start-up, steady state, and shutdown modes are controlled by a system controller. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5 EST.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724