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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2024 and 02/13/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Paragraph [0023] of the specification reads: “An anode plate separator 160 is on a second end 165 of subassembly 100.” 165 is not shown in Figure 1.
150 is used to label a second plate separator seal [0023] and an Oxidant source in Fig. 2.
160 is used to label an anode plate separator [0023] and a fuel source in Fig.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0004] reads: “The PEM is a sold polymer electrolyte…” and should read: “The PEM is a solid polymer electrolyte…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 3 and 4 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim reads: “re-disconnecting the fuel cell from the battery”. The term re-disconnecting is unclear, and the claim is being rejected for being indefinite. The claim is interpreted as: After a certain period of time has passed during which the fuel cell is being operated and is used to charge the battery the steps of claim 1 are repeated starting with the disconnection of the battery. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected as dependent claims.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danohue at al. (US 6399231 B1; “Donahue” hereinafter) in view of Colbow et al. (US-6472090-B1, “Colbow” hereinafter) and Schiegl et al. (DE202006020706U1; hereinafter “Schiegl”, EP1848057A1 is used as a translation).
Regarding claim 1, Donahue discloses a method (title) for reducing fuel cell contaminants of a fuel cell (regeneration, abstract), comprising: flowing oxidant to a cathode and fuel to an anode of the fuel cell to provide a first flow of electrical current to a battery (normal cell operation: hydrogen containing fuel on the anode and an oxidant on the cathode to provide an electric current within an external electric circuit to power an electricity using device (here: charge a battery) col. 2, lines 8-12); disconnecting the fuel cell from the battery (disconnect the cell from its normal operating load; (col. 3 line 21)); stopping a flow of the oxidant to a cathode inlet of the fuel cell (halt the flow of oxidant to the cathode (col. 3 line 22)); passing current from the fuel cell through a resistor (connect the cell to an auxiliary external resistive load (Col. 3, l.24) and (current flows through the auxiliary external resistive load Col. 3, l. 28-29)) coupled to the fuel cell (see figure 4 below); allowing a voltage of the fuel cell to go below a predetermined voltage (desired low cathode potential reached and held for a period of time (col.3; lines 32-33)) to clean off a catalyst surface of a membrane of a membrane electrode assembly of the fuel cell ( restore cell performance (col. 3 l. 33); this forces any remaining oxidant from the cell and results in reducing the cathode potential (col. 2 lines 55-57)); increasing the flow of the oxidant to the cathode; and reconnecting the battery to the fuel cell to provide a second flow of the electrical current to the battery (normal operation of the cell resumes (col. 2 line 62)). Donahue discloses that it is well known that fuel cells experience degradation and performance loss and discloses methods to overcome those performance losses which occur during normal operation. Donahue fails to explicitly disclose that the performance regained by reducing fuel cell contaminants. Colbow explicitly discloses the reduction of contaminants (removal of electrocatalyst poisons, abstract). Donahue and Colbow are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely methods to regenerate fuel cell performance. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Colbow into the similar method of Donahue as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Donahue discloses that the fuel cell powers an electricity using device but does not explicitly disclose that this device is a battery. Schiegl discloses a control system for a power supply system comprising a reformer fuel cell system and a battery. Donahue and Schiegel are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell systems and their operating methods. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a battery as the power utilizing device as disclosed by Schiegel as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known component for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 2, Donahue discloses the method of claim 1 including operating the fuel cell for a period of time; and re-disconnecting the fuel cell from the battery. (Periodic regeneration at appropriate intervals, (Col. 6, lines 3)).
Regarding claim 3, Donahue teaches the method if claim 1 but does not disclose determining the period of time based on a state of charge of the battery, wherein the state of charge is between 10 to 25%. Schiegel discloses a control device for a fuel cell system that uses a voltage threshold as a starting signal. (Falling below a lower voltage threshold for a battery voltage at least during a predetermined undervoltage period [0013]). Colbow similarly discloses the observation off performance indicators and discloses that cell voltage, current, power output, poison concentration in the reactant stream and temperature may be used to determine the duration of the oxygen starvation phase. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Donahue teaches the method if claim 1 and indirectly discloses determining the period of time based on an ampere-hour usage of the fuel cell, wherein the ampere-hour usage is between 10 and 25 ampere- hours. (The system 92 also includes controls, not shown, for operating the valves and switches either upon demand, in accordance with a schedule, or, for example, when certain measured parameters reach preselected values). While not explicitly teaching the specific values, Donahue further discloses scheduling the regeneration mode of operation to occur at sufficiently close intervals. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, Schiegl discloses a control device causing a fuel cell system including a reformer to start when an ampere-hour limit for a time-integrated discharge current of the battery is exceeded (Schiegl, [0013]) ensuring profitability and avoidance of battery damage through deep discharge or as a percentage in relation to a full load (100%). Donahue and Schiegl are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell systems. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the ampere-hour limit disclosed by Schiegl to the control system disclosed by Donahue as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 5, Donahue teaches the method of claim 1 and discloses a predetermined voltage of 0.3 V (periodically reducing the cathode potential to about 0.6 volts or less, and preferably to 0.1 volt or less (abstract)).
Regarding claim 6, Donahue discloses the method of claim 1, flowing the oxidant to the cathode and the fuel to the anode of the fuel cell to provide the first flow of electrical current to the battery. Donahue fails to disclose flowing an amount of the oxidant through the fuel cell to generate less than 1 kW in electrical power. The power output of a fuel cell can be regulated by adjusting the fuel supply to the fuel cell system. In seeking a fuel cell system that produces less than 1 kW of electrical energy it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to apply the method disclosed by Donahue to a fuel cell system and respective reactant streams designed for a 1 kW output. Additionally, Colbow discloses a method of starving a fuel cell stack while connected to deliver electrical power to a load and further discloses stopping or adjusting the rate of supply of the reactant to less than that specific demanded to satisfy the load and discloses that the fuel cell electrodes become reactant starved (Col. 8, 11-13) which leads to a removal of electrocatalyst poisons and in improved fuel cell performance (abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Donahue discloses the method according to claim 1 and further discloses the stopping the flow of the oxidant to the cathode inlet of the fuel cell occurs when the fuel cell discharges 10 to 25 ampere-hours of electric charge. (The system 92 also includes controls, not shown, for operating the valves and switches either upon demand, in accordance with a schedule, or, for example, when certain measured parameters reach preselected values). While not explicitly teaching the specific values, Donahue further discloses scheduling the regeneration mode of operation to occur at sufficiently close intervals. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Additionally, Schiegl discloses a control device causing a fuel cell system including a reformer to start when an ampere-hour limit for a time-integrated discharge current of the battery is exceeded (Schiegl, [0013]) ensuring profitability and avoidance of battery damage through deep discharge or as a percentage in relation to a full load (100%). Donahue and Schiegl are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell systems. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the ampere-hour limit disclosed by Schiegl to the control system disclosed by Donahue as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danohue at al. (US 6399231 B1; “Donahue” hereinafter) in view of Colbow et al. (US-6472090-B1, “Colbow” hereinafter) and Schiegl et al. (DE202006020706U1; hereinafter “Schiegl”, EP1848057A1 is used as a translation) as applied to claims 1-7 and further in view of Nakakubo et al. (JP 2008084849 A; “Nakakubo” hereinafter, a machine translation is being used for citations) and Houlberg (US2004137295A1 ; “Houlberg” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Donahue discloses a fuel cell system, comprising: a fuel cell having a membrane electrode assembly (schematic depiction PEM fuel cell system, fig. 1, Col. 4 line 8) with a membrane (PEM) having a catalyst surface (cathode catalyst layer, MEA); an oxidant source supplying a flow of oxidants (oxidant source 116, figure 1, col. 9, line 27) to the fuel cell; a controller (the system 92 also includes controls 92, col. 5 line 21) configured to stop the flow of oxidants to the fuel cell (system 92 includes controls, not shown, for operating the valves and switches, col. 5 line 21, oxygen is cut off and hydrogen flows to the cathodeCol.5, lines 39) a battery electrically connected to the fuel cell (124, primary load); the controller configured to disconnect the battery from the fuel cell; and the controller configured to connect a resistor (small auxiliary external resistive load, 131C) to the fuel cell such that current passes from the fuel cell through the resistor to allow a voltage of the fuel cell to go below a predetermined voltage (reducing cathode potential to 0.6 volts or less, abstract) to clean off (regenerate, abstract) the catalyst surface of the membrane of the membrane electrode assembly of the fuel cell (restore cell performance (col. 3 l. 33)).
Donahue indirectly discloses that that the controller is configured to connect to a resistor and that a current passes through it. Additionally, Nakakubo teaches that the controller is configured to connect to a resistor and indirectly discloses a current passing through it. (The fuel consumption means 14 connects a resistor between the fuel electrode and the oxidant electrode of the fuel cell and stops the fuel remaining in the fuel flow path when stopped. The connection of the resistor continues until at least a predetermined time elapses or the potential difference of the fuel cell becomes a certain voltage (for example, 10 mV) or less.). Donahue and Nakakubo are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cells systems and their control. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the resistor disclosed by Nakakubo to the fuel cell system disclosed by Donahue as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known component for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
While disclosing the resistor Nakakubo does not directly disclose passing a current from the fuel cell through the resistor. Houlberg discloses a resistor in the form of a resistive heating element and discloses the current passing through the heating element and the resulting decrease of the voltage (Furthermore, directing current through the resistive heat-able element at low loads, in particular at loads approaching zero,… the resistive heat able element acts as a bleed down resistor while shutting down the fuel cell stack (i.e., it draws a small amount of current and, in this way, "bleeds" or consumes excess hydrogen remaining in the fuel cell stack) [0015]).
Donahue, Nakakubo and Houlberg are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cells systems and their control. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the system disclosed by Donahue and Nakakubo according to Houlberg as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known component for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Donahue discloses that the fuel cell powers an electricity using device but does not explicitly disclose that this device is a battery. Schiegl discloses a control system for a power supply system comprising a reformer fuel cell system and a battery. Donahue and Schiegel are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell systems and their operating methods. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a battery as the power utilizing device as disclosed by Schiegel as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known component for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
PNG
media_image1.png
921
1478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Donahue Figure 2
Regarding claim 9, Donahue discloses the fuel cell system of claim 8, and indirectly discloses that the controller is configured to stop the flow of oxidants to the fuel cell based on an ampere-hour usage of the fuel cell, wherein the ampere-hour usage is between 10 and 25 ampere-hours. Donahue indirectly teaches determining the period of time based on an ampere-hour usage of the fuel cell, wherein the ampere-hour usage is between 10 and 25 ampere- hours. (The system 92 also includes controls, not shown, for operating the valves and switches either upon demand, in accordance with a schedule, or, for example, when certain measured parameters reach preselected values). While not explicitly teaching the specific values, Donahue further discloses scheduling the regeneration mode of operation to occur at sufficiently close intervals. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, Schiegl discloses a control device causing a fuel cell system including a reformer to start when an ampere-hour limit for a time-integrated discharge current of the battery is exceeded (Schiegl, [0013]) ensuring profitability and avoidance of battery damage through deep discharge or as a percentage in relation to a full load (100%). Donahue and Schiegl are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell systems. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the ampere-hour limit disclosed by Schiegl to the control system disclosed by Donahue as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 10, Donahue teaches the fuel cell system of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to disconnect the resistor from the fuel cell when the voltage of the fuel cell reaches a predetermined voltage, wherein the predetermined voltage is 0.3V. Donahue discloses that the fuel cell system also includes controls for operating the valves and switches either upon demand, in accordance with a schedule, or, for example, when certain measured parameters reach preselected values (col 5., line 21). Fig. 2 (Donahue Fig. 4) depicts the regenerative state during which valve 155 is closed and the auxiliary resistive load 131 C is connected. During normal operation valve 155 is opened, delivering oxygen and switch 136C is closed, connecting the normal load 124 and 138 C is opened disconnecting the auxiliary load (col. 9, 34-38).
PNG
media_image2.png
629
1005
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Donahue Figure 4
Donahue indirectly teaches determining the period of time based on an ampere-hour usage of the fuel cell, wherein the ampere-hour usage is between 10 and 25 ampere- hours. (The system 92 also includes controls, not shown, for operating the valves and switches either upon demand, in accordance with a schedule, or, for example, when certain measured parameters reach preselected values). While not explicitly teaching the specific values, Donahue further discloses scheduling the regeneration mode of operation to occur at sufficiently close intervals. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Additionally, Schiegl discloses a control device causing a fuel cell system including a reformer to start when an ampere-hour limit for a time-integrated discharge current of the battery is exceeded (Schiegl, [0013]) ensuring profitability and avoidance of battery damage through deep discharge or as a percentage in relation to a full load (100%). Donahue and Schiegl are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell systems. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the ampere-hour limit disclosed by Schiegl to the control system disclosed by Donahue as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 11, Donahue discloses the fuel cell system of claim 8 and discloses that a controller is configured to connect the resistor to the fuel cell when the ampere-hour usage of the fuel cell is between 10 and 25 ampere- hours. Donahue discloses that the fuel cell system also includes controls for operating the valves and switches either upon demand, in accordance with a schedule, or, for example, when certain measured parameters reach preselected values (col 5., line 21). (Donahue Figure 4 shows the resistor 131C in a connected state). Donahue indirectly teaches determining the period of time based on an ampere-hour usage of the fuel cell, wherein the ampere-hour usage is between 10 and 25 ampere- hours. (The system 92 also includes controls, not shown, for operating the valves and switches either upon demand, in accordance with a schedule, or, for example, when certain measured parameters reach preselected values). While not explicitly teaching the specific values, Donahue further discloses scheduling the regeneration mode of operation to occur at sufficiently close intervals. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, Schiegl discloses a control device causing a fuel cell system including a reformer to start when an ampere-hour limit for a time-integrated discharge current of the battery is exceeded (Schiegl, [0013]) ensuring profitability and avoidance of battery damage through deep discharge or as a percentage in relation to a full load (100%). Donahue and Schiegl are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell systems. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the ampere-hour limit disclosed by Schiegl to the control system disclosed by Donahue as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 12, Donahue discloses the fuel cell system according to claim 8, wherein the oxidant source is supplying the flow of oxidants to the fuel cell for a period of time (normal operation, col. 2, lines 8-12) before disconnecting the battery from the fuel cell (disconnect the cell from its normal operating load; (col. 3 line 21), such that the controller determines the period of time based on the ampere-hour usage of the fuel cell, wherein the ampere-hour usage is between 10 and 25 ampere-hours. Donahue indirectly teaches determining the period of time based on an ampere-hour usage of the fuel cell, wherein the ampere-hour usage is between 10 and 25 ampere-hours. (The system 92 also includes controls, not shown, for operating the valves and switches either upon demand, in accordance with a schedule, or, for example, when certain measured parameters reach preselected values) (col 5., line 21). While not explicitly teaching the specific values, Donahue further discloses scheduling the regeneration mode of operation to occur at sufficiently close intervals. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, Schiegl discloses a control device causing a fuel cell system including a reformer to start when an ampere-hour limit for a time-integrated discharge current of the battery is exceeded (Schiegl, [0013]) ensuring profitability and avoidance of battery damage through deep discharge or as a percentage in relation to a full load (100%). Donahue and Schiegl are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell systems. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the ampere-hour limit disclosed by Schiegl to the control system disclosed by Donahue as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danohue at al. (US 6399231 B1; “Donahue” hereinafter) in view of Colbow et al. (US-6472090-B1, “Colbow” hereinafter) and Schiegl et al. (DE202006020706U1; hereinafter “Schiegl”, EP1848057A1 is used as a translation) and Nakakubo et al. (JP 2008084849 A; “Nakakubo” hereinafter, a machine translation is being used for citations) and Houlberg (US2004137295A1 ; “Houlberg” hereinafter) as applied to claims 1-12 and further in view of Hiramitsu et al. (JP2018060688; “Hiramitsu” hereinafter).
.
Regarding claim 13, Donahue discloses the fuel cell system of claim 8 but fails to disclose that the cleaning comprises desorbing contaminants from the catalyst and expelling the contaminants in water flowing through an outlet of the fuel cell. Hiramitsu discloses the impurities attached to the electrode and the separator are removed by reduction and dissolved in water. Thereafter, by executing the purge control, and further discloses that it is possible to discharge the water in which the impurities are dissolved to the outside of the fuel cell [0009]. Donahue and Hiramitsu are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely Fuel cell systems. In seeking a reliable method for the cleaning of a fuel cell bore the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to purge the system as disclosed by Hiramitsu as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 14, the controller is configured to control the supplying the flow of oxidants to the fuel cell for a period of time before the controller disconnects the battery from the fuel cell, wherein the controller determines the period of time based on a state of charge of the battery. Donahue discloses that the fuel cell system also includes controls for operating the valves and switches either upon demand, in accordance with a schedule, or, for example, when certain measured parameters reach preselected values (col 5., line 21).
Regarding claim 15, Donahue discloses the fuel cell system according to claim 8 and discloses an auxiliary resistive load but fails to disclose that the resistor is a resistive coolant heater of the fuel cell configured to control a temperature of coolant flowing through the fuel cell. Houlberg discloses a resistive heat able element (abstract).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the battery comprises a higher load than the resistor. Donahue discloses a system to power an electricity using device (here: charge a battery). Donahue also teaches an auxiliary resistive load. The main purpose of the fuel cell system is designed to provide energy for the electricity using device. Donahue discloses an automotive application of the system (col. 2, lines 28) and therefor it is obvious that the battery is comprising a higher load than the resistor.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. US6537690B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application overlap in scope with the claims of the reference application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA LEE HANYON whose telephone number is (571)272-8881. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/S.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights