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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 08/21/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search bu. This is not found persuasive because each group possess
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (DE102020106086A1, as cited in IDS dated 01/06/25, reference made to attached English translation), in view of Herron (US20100136448A1).
Regarding claim 1, Muller discloses a capture device (i.e. water separator, 8) comprising:
a body defining a chamber configured to receive liquid and gas from a fuel cell system, the chamber comprising an upper end region and a lower end region(i.e. separator housing 10, see upper and lower region in Fig. 3):
an outlet disposed at the body and in fluid communication with the lower end region of the chamber(water outlet 15):
a gas bypass hose including a first end at the body and in fluid communication with the upper end region of the chamber and a second end at the body and in fluid communication with the lower end region of the chamber(bypass line 13, see Fig. 3 open line connected to the upper and lower portions); and
a drain valve(9) disposed between the chamber and the outlet and operable between an open state permitting fluid communication between the chamber and the outlet to drain liquid and purge gas from the chamber and a closed state preventing fluid communication between the chamber and the outlet(¶[0002, opened as needed, see purge valve exhausts gases and water ¶[0020]), but does not disclose the valve is a solenoid valve.
Herron, related to fuel cells, teaches a purge assembly 30 to exhaust gas and water through a solenoid valve(¶[0020]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the solenoid valve as taught by Herron in place of the drain valve of Muller would provide an effective valve(¶[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the solenoid valve of Herron in place of the drain valve of Muller to provide an effective valve
Regarding claim 5, modified Muller discloses a capture device of claim 1 and Muller further discloses heating device 19 disposed at the outlet (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Muller discloses a capture device of claim 1 and Muller further discloses wherein the gas bypass hose maintains fluid communication between the upper end region of the chamber and the lower end region of the chamber(Fig. 3 see fluid communication path).
Regarding claim 7, modified Muller discloses a capture device of claim 1 and Herron further discloses herein the solenoid valve operated in the open state and the closed state based on a control signal from a control module(i.e. controller 40) of an application equipped with the capture device(¶[0023]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Muller discloses a capture device of claim 7 and Herron further discloses wherein the solenoid valve is operated in the open state responsive to (i) the control signal instructing the capture device to drain liquid from the chamber and (ii) the control signal instructing the capture device to purge gas from the chamber (see purge valve exhausts gases and water ¶[0020]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Muller discloses a capture device of claim 7 and Herron further discloses wherein the solenoid valve is operated in the open state responsive to the control signal indicating startup of the application(¶[0021]-[0022] see operation based on process parameters). It would have been obvious to operate the valve when the process parameter is at a preset value at startup or anytime during use of the capture device.
Furthermore, the claim recites intended use limitations of the solenoid valve. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. These limitations will be treated alongside structural limitations for compact prosecution.
Regarding claim 10, modified Muller discloses a capture device of claim 1 and Muller further discloses wherein the upper end region of the chamber is oriented above the lower end region of the chamber(Fig. 3).
Claims 2-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (DE102020106086A1, as cited in IDS dated 01/06/25, reference made to attached English translation), in view of Herron (US20100136448A1) and further in view of Son(US20180323451A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Muller discloses a capture device of claim 1 and Muller further discloses a sump at the lower end region of the chamber(i.e. collecting container 17, Fig. 3), but does not disclose the outlet and the second end of the gas bypass hose fluidly connected to the sump at respective positions above a maximum liquid line.
Son, related to fuel cells, teaches a separator 50 to separate the water and gas from the fuel cell system(Fig. 3, ¶[0034]) and when the system is not being operated after shutdown the water is removed from the separator to prepare for the next cycle and reduce freezing risk thereby making the maximum fill line when not operating at or near the bottom of the container.
One of ordinary skill would have recognizing making the max fill line at or near the bottom of the container while not being operated would prepare for the next cycle and reduce freezing risk thereby placing the outlet and second end of the gas bypass hose of Muller fluidically connected to the sump and above the maximum fill line.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to discharge the water of the capture device creating a very low max fill line while not being operated to prepare for the next cycle and reduce freezing risk.
Regarding claim 4, modified Muller discloses a capture device of claim 2 and Muller further discloses a valve conduit extending between the chamber and the outlet(pipe section 18, Fig. 3, ¶[0025]), the outlet and the second end of the gas bypass hose being fluidly connected to the valve conduit at respective positions above the maximum liquid line to permit fluid communication between the gas bypass hose and the outlet when the solenoid valve is in the open state(see Fig. 3 and rejection of claims 2 and 3 for max liquid line at bottom of sump).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights