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 .
Claims 1-5 are pending in the application
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.
Claims 1-5 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 1 recites the limitation “output amount of the fuel cell” in lines 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what is being outputted to determine the “output amount,” whether that be the amount of fuel off-gas exhausted from the fuel cell, a current output to a load from the fuel cell, or a different output altogether.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “output amount of the fuel cell” in lines 1 and 3 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what is being outputted to determine the “output amount,” whether that be the amount of fuel off-gas exhausted from the fuel cell, a current output to a load from the fuel cell, or a different output altogether.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “output amount of the fuel cell” in line 1 and 3 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what is being outputted to determine the “output amount,” whether that be the amount of fuel off-gas exhausted from the fuel cell, a current output to a load from the fuel cell, or a different output altogether.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “when the output amount of the fuel cell is in the third output region, the linear solenoid valve opens such that the opening degree is larger than the planned opening degree as the output amount of the fuel cell is smaller” in lines 1-3 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “as the output amount of the fuel cell is smaller” is merely a statement saying that when the output amount of the fuel cell is in the third output region, it is generally smaller, tho9ugh it is unclear what it would be smaller than, or if there is another interpretation altogether.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “an output amount” in lines 2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what is being outputted to determine the “output amount,” whether that be the amount of fuel off-gas exhausted from the fuel cell, a current output to a load from the fuel cell, or a different output altogether.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “output amount of the fuel cell” in line 3 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what is being outputted to determine the “output amount,” whether that be the amount of fuel off-gas exhausted from the fuel cell, a current output to a load from the fuel cell, or a different output altogether.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “output amount of the fuel cell” in lines 1 and 3 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what is being outputted to determine the “output amount,” whether that be the amount of fuel off-gas exhausted from the fuel cell, a current output to a load from the fuel cell, or a different output altogether.
Claims 2-5 are further rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teshima et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0042523).
Regarding Claim 1, Teshima teaches a fuel cell system comprising a circulation system (fuel injection unit, Injection control unit, and ejector) for fuel gas in a fuel cell (abstract and [0020]). The circulation system includes an injector ([0047] and fig. 1 ref. #52) a linear solenoid valve disposed in parallel with the injector ([0047] and fig. 1 ref. #51), and an ejector ([0020] and fig. 1 ref. #43).
The limitation “an injector for the fuel gas” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP § 2111.02). The injector of Teshima is capable of being used for the fuel gas as it is fluidically connected to the fuel gas (hydrogen) tank ([0044] and fig. 1 ref. #31 and #52).
The limitation “a linear solenoid valve for the fuel gas” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP § 2111.02). The linear solenoid valve of Teshima is capable of being used for the fuel gas as it is fluidically connected to the fuel gas (hydrogen) tank ([0044] and fig. 1 ref. #31 and #51).
The limitation “an ejector that introduces fuel off-gas exhausted from the fuel cell, into the fuel cell, together with the fuel gas from the injector and the linear solenoid valve” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP § 2111.02). The ejector of Teshima is capable of introducing off-gas exhausted from the fuel cell, into the fuel cell, together with the fuel gas from the injector and the linear solenoid valve as it is fluidically connected to the off-gas exhaust of the fuel cell ([0052] and fig. 1 ref. #22 and #43) and to the injector and linear solenoid valve on the input side of the fuel cell (fig. 1 ref. #43, #51, and #52).
The limitation “ the injector operates when an output amount of the fuel cell is in a first output region, an upper limit of the first output region being a first output amount threshold; the linear solenoid valve operates when the output amount of the fuel cell is in a second output region in which the output amount of the fuel cell is larger than the first output amount threshold; and when the output amount of the fuel cell is in a third output region that is included in the second output region and in which the output amount of the fuel cell is larger than the first output amount threshold and is equal to or smaller than a second output amount threshold, the linear solenoid valve opens at such a degree that the fuel gas and the fuel off-gas that are necessary to secure a hydrogen amount threshold are capable of being introduced from the ejector into the fuel cell, the hydrogen amount threshold being a smallest hydrogen amount necessary for operation of the fuel cell” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP § 2111.02).
The fuel cell system of Teshima is capable of performing this limitation as both the injector and linear solenoid valve are operationally controlled by an injection control unit ([0058] and fig. 1 ref. #42), and the linear solenoid valve can be open and closed, depending on the desired flow rate of fuel gas, ranging from 0% open to 100% open ([0048]).
Therefore, the injector is capable of operating when an output amount of the fuel cell is in a first output region, an upper limit of the first output region being a first output amount threshold. The linear solenoid valve is capable of operating when the output amount of the fuel cell is in a second output region in which the output amount of the fuel cell is larger than the first output amount threshold. When the output amount of the fuel cell is in a third output region that is included in the second output region and in which the output amount of the fuel cell is larger than the first output amount threshold and is equal to or smaller than a second output amount threshold, the linear solenoid valve is capable of opening at such a degree that the fuel gas and the fuel off-gas that are necessary to secure a hydrogen amount threshold are capable of being introduced from the ejector into the fuel cell, the hydrogen amount threshold being a smallest hydrogen amount necessary for operation of the fuel cell.
As intended use limitations are capable of being done with the fuel cell system of Teshima, the claim is anticipated by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “when the output amount of the fuel cell is in the third output region, the linear solenoid valve opens at an opening degree larger than a planned opening degree that is previously specified for the output amount of the fuel cell” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP § 2111.02). As the linear solenoid valve opening of Teshima is controlled by an injection control unit ([0058] and fig. 1 ref. #42), the linear solenoid valve is capable of opening at an opening degree larger than a planned opening degree that is previously specified for the output amount of the fuel cell, therefore the claim is anticipated by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “wherein when the output amount of the fuel cell is in the third output region, the linear solenoid valve opens such that the opening degree is larger than the planned opening degree as the output amount of the fuel cell is smaller” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP § 2111.02). As the linear solenoid valve opening of Teshima is controlled by an injection control unit ([0058] and fig. 1 ref. #42), the linear solenoid valve is capable of opening such that the opening degree is larger than the planned opening degree as the output amount of the fuel cell is smaller, therefore the claim is anticipated by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 4, as the second output threshold, target flow amount, and planned opening degree may all be arbitrarily defined, a value can be chosen for the second output threshold for Teshima such that an output amount that a circulation flow amount of the fuel off-gas reaches a target flow amount at the planned opening degree for the output amount of the fuel cell. Therefore, the claim is anticipated by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “after the output amount of the fuel cell exceeds the third output region, the linear solenoid valve opens at the planned opening degree for the output amount of the fuel cell” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP § 2111.02). As the linear solenoid valve opening of Teshima is controlled by an injection control unit ([0058] and fig. 1 ref. #42), the linear solenoid valve is capable of opening at the planned opening degree for the output amount of the fuel cell after the output amount of the fuel cell exceeds the third output region, therefore the claim is anticipated by the prior art.
Pertinent Art Not Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsusue (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0194024) teaches a fuel cell system (title) with a plurality of injection devices for the fuel gas in parallel (abstract and fig. 1 ref. #31-#33), some of which being linear solenoid valves ([0019]) and an ejector for mixing fuel cell off-gas with the fuel gas ([0008] and fig. 1 ref. #44). The linear solenoid valves opening amounts can be controlled in order to regulate flow of the fuel gas and off-gas ([0074]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 06/18/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights