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 .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted May 7, 2024, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murata et al. (JP2000-319003A).
With regard to Claim 1, Murata et al. disclose in Figures 1-3, a heat exchanger (30), comprising: a coolant cavity, formed of stainless steel, having a coolant flow path, called a steam flow path (36), configured for fluidly communicating coolant between at least one coolant inlet (37) and at least one coolant outlet (38) (paragraph 0022; See Figure 2); a hydrogen cavity, formed of stainless steel, having a hydrogen flow path, called a hydrogen-rich gas flow path (32), configured for fluidly communicating hydrogen between at least one hydrogen inlet (33) and at least one hydrogen outlet (34), the hydrogen cavity including a plurality of fins (35, 39) dispersed in-line throughout a serpentine (rectangular zigzag cross-section) section of the hydrogen flow path (32) (paragraph 0023; See Figure 3); and a housing, the stainless steel heat exchanger (30) (See Figure 1), configured for thermally coupling the coolant cavity (Figure 2) with the hydrogen cavity (Figure 3), the thermal coupling providing conductive heat transfer between the coolant and the hydrogen with at least a portion of the heat transfer occurring through the fins (35, 39) (paragraphs 0032-0033).
The recitation, “for a fuel cell system of an electric vehicle”, is recited in the preamble, therefore the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
With regard to Claim 2, Murata et al. disclose in Figure 3, the serpentine (zigzag) section is configured for directing the hydrogen through a plurality of channels (32) layered vertically from top-to-bottom heightwise across the hydrogen cavity (paragraph 0023; See annotated figure below).
With regard to Claim 3, Murata et al. disclose in Figure 3, wherein the serpentine (zigzag) section includes a plurality of shelves configured for defining switchbacks between the channels (32), the switchbacks directing the hydrogen through the serpentine (zigzag) section in a back-and-forth manner from a side-to-side widthwise across the hydrogen cavity (paragraph 0023; See annotated figure below).
With regard to Claim 4, Murata et al. disclose in Figure 3, wherein each of the shelves includes an open end configured for defining a fluid turn for one of the switchbacks and a closed end configured for adhering to one of a first sidewall and a second sidewall of the hydrogen cavity (paragraph 0023; See annotated figure below).
With regard to Claim 5, Murata et al. disclose in Figure 3, wherein the fins (35, 39) are configured to extend from front-to-rear depthwise across the hydrogen cavity (paragraph 0023).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 8, Murata et al. disclose in Figures 1-3 and 5-6, wherein the housing, made of the stainless steel heat exchanger (30), includes a dividing wall, formed by the stainless steel steam flow path (36) and hydrogen-rich gas flow path (32) being in contact with one another, as well as, the fins (35, 39) attached to both flow paths (32, 36) with a small attachment interval, for fluidly isolating the coolant cavity from the hydrogen cavity, the dividing wall configured for orientating the coolant cavity back-to-back with the hydrogen cavity (paragraphs 0023-0024; See Figures 5-6).
With regard to Claim 9, Murata et al. disclose in Figures 2-3 and 5-6, wherein the fins (35, 39) are integrated with the dividing wall (paragraphs 0023-0024; See Figures 5-6).
With regard to Claim 10, Murata et al. disclose in Figures 2-3 and 5-6, wherein the serpentine (zigzag) section is configured for directing the hydrogen in a back-and-forth manner from a side-to-side widthwise through a plurality of channels (32, 36) layered vertically from top-to-bottom heightwise across the hydrogen cavity (paragraph 0023; See annotated figure above).
With regard to Claim 11, Murata et al. disclose wherein the fins (35, 39) are configured for extending from front-to-rear depthwise between a forward side and a rearward side of the channels (32, 36) such that a rearward end of each fin (35, 39) is integrated with the dividing wall and a forward end of each fin (35, 39) is attached or proximate to a forward wall of the hydrogen cavity (paragraphs 0023-0024).
With regard to Claim 12, Murata et al. disclose in Figures 5-6, wherein the at least one coolant inlet (37) includes no more than a first inlet (37) and the at least one coolant outlet (38) includes no more than a first outlet (38), with the coolant flow path (36) between the first inlet (37) and the first outlet (38) is shaped to mirror the serpentine (zigzag) section of the hydrogen flow path (32) (paragraphs 0032-0034).
With regard to Claim 14, Murata et al. disclose in Figures 1-3, a heat exchanger (30), comprising: a coolant cavity, formed of stainless steel, having a coolant flow path, called a steam flow path (36), configured for fluidly communicating coolant (paragraph 0022; See Figure 2); a hydrogen cavity, formed of stainless steel, having a hydrogen flow path, called a hydrogen-rich gas flow path (32), configured for fluidly communicating hydrogen, the hydrogen cavity including a plurality of fins (35, 39) dispersed in-line throughout (paragraph 0023; See Figure 3); and a housing, the stainless steel heat exchanger (30) (See Figure 1), configured for thermally coupling the coolant cavity (Figure 2) with the hydrogen cavity (Figure 3), the thermal coupling providing conductive heat transfer between the coolant and the hydrogen with at least a portion of the heat transfer occurring through the fins (35, 39) (paragraphs 0032-0033).
The recitation, “for a fuel cell system of an electric vehicle”, is recited in the preamble, therefore the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
With regard to Claim 15, Murata et al. disclose in Figures 2-3 and 5-6, wherein the hydrogen flow path (32) includes a serpentine (zigzag) section configured for directing the hydrogen in a back-and-forth manner from a side-to-side widthwise through a plurality of channels (32, 36) layered vertically from top-to-bottom heightwise across the hydrogen cavity (paragraph 0023; See annotated figure above).
With regard to Claim 16, Murata et al. disclose in Figures 1-3 and 5-6, wherein the housing, made of the stainless steel heat exchanger (30), includes a dividing wall, formed by the stainless steel steam flow path (36) and hydrogen-rich gas flow path (32) being in contact with one another, as well as, the fins (35, 39) attached to both flow paths (32, 36) with a small attachment interval, for fluidly isolating the coolant cavity from the hydrogen cavity, the dividing wall configured for orientating the coolant cavity back-to-back with the hydrogen cavity (paragraphs 0023-0024; See Figures 5-6).
With regard to Claim 17, Murata et al. disclose wherein the fins (35, 39) are configured for extending from front-to-rear depthwise between a forward side and a rearward side of the channels (32, 36) such that a rearward end of each fin (35, 39) is integrated with the dividing wall and a forward end of each fin (35, 39) is attached or proximate to a forward wall of the hydrogen cavity (paragraphs 0023-0024).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 6, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (JP2000-319003A), as applied to Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14-17 above.
With regard to Claim 6, Murata et al. disclose the heat exchanger in paragraph 6 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the fins are oval shaped. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the fins to be oval shaped, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 7, Murata et al. disclose the heat exchanger in paragraph 6 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the fins occupy more than half of a volume of the serpentine section. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the fins to occupy more than half of a volume of the serpentine section, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 13, Murata et al. disclose the heat exchanger in paragraph 6 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the at least one coolant inlet includes a first inlet and a second inlet; the at least one coolant outlet includes a first outlet and a second outlet; and the coolant flow path includes a first path corresponding with a first portion of the coolant flow path between the first inlet and the first outlet and a second path corresponding with a second portion of the coolant flow path between the second inlet and the second outlet, with the first path shaped to mirror an upper portion of the serpentine section of the hydrogen flow path and the second path shaped to mirror a lower portion of the serpentine section of the hydrogen flow path. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to manufacture the at least one coolant inlet to include a first inlet and a second inlet; the at least one coolant outlet to include a first outlet and a second outlet; and the coolant flow path includes a first path corresponding with a first portion of the coolant flow path between the first inlet and the first outlet and a second path corresponding with a second portion of the coolant flow path between the second inlet and the second outlet, with the first path shaped to mirror an upper portion of the serpentine section of the hydrogen flow path and the second path shaped to mirror a lower portion of the serpentine section of the hydrogen flow path, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04(VI).
11. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (JP2000-319003A).
With regard to Claim 18, Murata et al. disclose in Figures 1-3, a heat exchanger (30), comprising: a coolant cavity, formed of stainless steel, having a coolant flow path, called a steam flow path (36), configured for fluidly circulating coolant at a first temperature (paragraph 0022; See Figure 2); a hydrogen cavity, formed of stainless steel, having a hydrogen flow path, called a hydrogen-rich gas flow path (32), configured for fluidly circulating hydrogen at a second temperature less than the first temperature (the hydrogen-rich gas is sufficiently cooled and the water vapor is sufficiently heated) (paragraphs 0023, 0030). Murata et al. disclose wherein the hydrogen cavity including a plurality of fins (35, 39) dispersed in-line throughout a serpentine (zigzag) section (paragraph 0023; See Figure 3), the serpentine (zigzag) section configured for directing the hydrogen in a back-and-forth manner from a side-to-side widthwise through a plurality of channels (32) layered vertically from top-to-bottom heightwise across the hydrogen cavity (paragraph 0023; see annotated figure above); and a housing, the stainless steel heat exchanger (30) (See Figure 1), for the coolant cavity and the hydrogen cavity, the housing includes a dividing wall, formed by the stainless steel steam flow path (36) and hydrogen-rich gas flow path (32) being in contact with one another, as well as, the fins (35, 39) attached to both flow paths (32, 36) with a small attachment interval, for fluidly isolating and thermally coupling the coolant cavity back-to-back with the hydrogen cavity, the fins (35, 39) being integrated with the dividing wall to facilitate conductive heat transfer between the coolant and the hydrogen (paragraphs 0023-0024, 0030, 0032-0033; See Figures 5-6). Murata et al. do not specifically disclose the hydrogen cavity including a plurality of arcuate shaped fins. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the fins to be arcuate shaped, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
The recitation, “for a fuel cell system of an electric vehicle”, is recited in the preamble, therefore the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
With regard to Claim 19, Murata et al. disclose wherein the hydrogen cavity includes a hydrogen flow path, formed of stainless steel, having a hydrogen flow path, called a hydrogen-rich gas flow path (32), configured for fluidly communicating hydrogen between at least one hydrogen inlet (33) and at least one hydrogen outlet (34) (paragraph 0023; See Figure 3). Murata et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the hydrogen cavity includes two or more outlets from the hydrogen flow path. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize two or more outlets from the hydrogen flow path, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04(VI).
With regard to Claim 20, Murata et al. disclose wherein the serpentine (zigzag) section includes a plurality of shelves configured for defining switchbacks between the channels (32, 36) (paragraphs 0023-0024; See annotated figure above).
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725