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 Amendments
The amendment filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and claims 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weydahl et al. (Fuel cell systems for long-endurance autonomous underwater vehicles - challenges and benefits, international journal of hydrogen energy 45 (2020) 5543-5553), hereinafter "Weydahl".
In regard to Claim 1, Weydahl et al. discloses a vessel for a fuel cell, the vessel comprising a wall defining a cavity (sealed container) wherein the cavity is configured to receive the fuel cell and comprises a non-explosive atmosphere with an embodiment comprising predominantly air (Weydahl, Pg 5547). However, the skilled artisan of Weydahl also contemplates a fuel cell system supplied from predominately an oxygen atmosphere as a variation with known benefits such as increasing its efficiency on cell level by increasing the Nernst potential and reducing diffusion losses in the cathode and that the stack can be operated with a lower cathode flow rate than for an air-fed stack (Weydahl, 5546). Weydahl et al. also discloses a catalyst in contact with the non-explosive atmosphere in the cavity wherein the catalyst is configured to convert hydrogen gas and oxygen gas into water (Weydahl, Pg 5550). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the vessel of Weydahl with a cavity comprising predominately oxygen gas as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claims 2-4, Weydahl et al. discloses the vessel of claim 1. Weydahl et al. also discloses wherein the catalyst comprises a precious metal catalyst comprising platinum wherein the catalyst is affixed to a substrate (ceramic) within the vessel (Weydahl, Pg 5550).
In regard to Claim 7, Weydahl et al. discloses the vessel of claim 1. Weydahl et al. also discloses a pressure tight, sealed container (Weydahl, Pg 5547) which is supplied with predominately oxygen gas from a oxygen generator placed inside the sealed container (Weydahl, Pg 5548). The oxygen is discharged from the reactor of the generator into the sealed container, which requires at the moment of discharge the reactor pressure must be ≥ the sealed container pressure and the reactor pressure is disclosed as 400 kPa abs (Weydahl, 5547), which is equivalent to 58 pounds per square inch absolute. Therefore, the pressure in the sealed container comprising the non-explosive atmosphere is at a pressure in a range of 0> pounds per square inch absolute to ≤ 58 pounds per square inch absolute which overlaps the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 8, Weydahl et al. discloses the vessel of claim 1. Weydahl et al. also discloses a water collection system in the cavity (Weydahl, Pg 5549).
In regard to Claim 11, Weydahl et al. discloses the vessel of claim 1. Weydahl et al. also discloses a valve configured to introduce oxygen gas into the cavity (Weydahl, Figure 6).
In regard to Claim 14, Weydahl et al. discloses a fuel cell system comprising the vessel of claim 1 and a fuel cell in the cavity of the vessel (Weydahl, Abstract).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weydahl et al. (Fuel cell systems for long-endurance autonomous underwater vehicles - challenges and benefits, international journal of hydrogen energy 45 (2020) 5543-5553), hereinafter "Weydahl" as applied to claim 1 above in view of Door et al. (US 5395705 A), hereinafter "Door". Weydahl and Door et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell operations.
In regard to Claims 5-6, Weydahl et al. discloses the vessel of claim 4. Weydahl et al. also discloses a platinum coated ceramic substrate to catalytically recombine H2 and O2 to water it fails to explicitly disclose the substrate comprises at least one of a metal, a polymer, and a composite or a wet-proofed carbon fiber paper.
Door et al. discloses catalytic metal particles (platinum) coated on a composite substrate comprising wet-proofed carbon fiber paper (Door, Pg 2, Col 2) and that this beneficial combination achieves the benefits of resisting water absorption (hydrophobic) so gas can continue to react with the catalyst (Door, Example 1, Claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a platinum coated wet proofed carbon fiber paper as taught in Door et al. in place of the platinum coated ceramic as disclosed in Weydahl et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Door et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weydahl et al. (Fuel cell systems for long-endurance autonomous underwater vehicles - challenges and benefits, international journal of hydrogen energy 45 (2020) 5543-5553), hereinafter "Weydahl" as applied to claim 1 above in view of Unno et al. (WO 2012161217 A1 - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Unno". Weydahl and Unno et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell operations.
In regard to Claims 9-10, Weydahl et al. discloses the vessel of claim 8. While Weydahl et al. also discloses the water collection system comprises a reservoir tank that serves as a collector for condensed water and that surplus water is transferred periodically to the product water reservoir wherein a pump is configured to remove water from the cavity (Weydahl, Pg 5549), it is silent as to the use of fluid sensors to activate the pump or what action initiates the periodic transfer of water.
Unno et al. discloses a fuel cell water collection system that uses a fluid sensor which senses whether the water level of the recovered water tank is at a predetermined level and activates a component of the system to facilitate drainage of the water through fluid conduit for draining (under gravity) the water inside the recovered water tank (Unno, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to orient the vessel to drain the water via gravity through fluid conduits to a reservoir, then provide a fluid sensor to detect a level of water in the reservoir and have the fluid sensor activate a component (pump) to remove the water from the cavity as taught in Unno et al. as doing so would be obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art and as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weydahl et al. (Fuel cell systems for long-endurance autonomous underwater vehicles - challenges and benefits, international journal of hydrogen energy 45 (2020) 5543-5553), hereinafter "Weydahl" as applied to claim 1 above in view of Pulsone et al. (Aluminum-Water Energy System for Autonomous Undersea Vehicles, volume 22, number 2, 2017 Lincoln Laboratory Journal), hereinafter "Pulsone". Weydahl and Pulsone et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell operations.
In regard to Claim 12, Weydahl et al. discloses the vessel of claim 1. While Weydahl et al. also discloses a controller in signal communication with the valve configured to introduce oxygen gas into the cavity in order to maintain a level of oxygen gas (Weydahl, Figure 6, Pg 5546), it is silent as to the method used to maintain the oxygen gas in the cavity.
Pulsone et al. discloses a sealed hull (cavity) configured to accept a fuel cell wherein a non-explosive predominately oxygen gas environment is provided to the cavity by an oxygen generator wherein the oxygen generator uses a pressure sensor to control the oxygen gas supplied into the cavity based on a pressure measured by the pressure sensor (Pulsone, Pgs 85, 87). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a pressure sensor to signal a controller to control a valve that supplies more oxygen gas to the cavity as taught in Pulsone and use that configuration as the method to maintain the oxygen gas in the cavity of Weydahl et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weydahl et al. (Fuel cell systems for long-endurance autonomous underwater vehicles - challenges and benefits, international journal of hydrogen energy 45 (2020) 5543-5553), hereinafter "Weydahl" as applied to claim 1 above in view of IR Class (Indian Register of Shipping, Guidelines on Vessels with Fuel Cell Power Installations, IRS-G-SAF-05), hereinafter "IR Class". Weydahl and IR Class are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell operations.
In regard to Claim 13, Weydahl et al. discloses the vessel of claim 1. While Weydahl et al. also discloses a fuel cell in a cavity wherein a controller can adjust the gas concentration and pressure it is silent as to a gas sensor to shut down the fuel cell.
However, this beneficial safety feature is well known to the skilled artisan as evidenced by the IR Class document wherein a fuel cell is housed in a gas tight enclosure and uses gas/vapour detection in the fuel cell spaces wherein a certain threshold in LEL will shut down the affected fuel cell (IR Class, Pg 50, Section 5.2, Page 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a standard safety feature comprising a gas sensor configured to shut down a fuel cell operating in an enclosure as taught in IR Class as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in IR Class and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection was changed from a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection to a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection and does not require anticipation which was specifically challenged in the argument.
In regards to applicants arguments that the reference discloses an air atmosphere and not predominately oxygen, as noted in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection above , the skilled artisan of Weydahl also contemplates a fuel cell system supplied from predominately an oxygen atmosphere as a variation with known benefits and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the vessel of Weydahl with a cavity comprising predominately oxygen gas as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights