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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 08/06/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 and 25 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 5 recites the limitation "the hydrogen source" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the hydrogen source" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the hydrogen source" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 25, the term “high temperature blower” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high temperature blower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-11, 21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weingaertner et al (WO 2020/055639).
Regarding claim 1, Weingaertner teaches a desulfurization system 400 that is included in fuel cell system 100. The desulfurization system 400 includes a desulfurization reactor 450 including a metal oxide such as ZnO. A CPOx reactor 200 and a cathode heat exchanger 410A are thermally connected to fuel conduit 402A which is connected as an inlet to the desulfurization reactor 450 (0035-0036 and figures 1 and 4) and are thus considered to heat the fuel prior to delivery, via conduit 402A, of the fuel to the reactor 450. It is noted that the ZnO is considered to be an adsorptive desulfurization catalyst as is taught by applicant (applicant’s own 0030 of the as filed specification).
Regarding claim 2, Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization reactor 450 including a metal oxide, such as ZnO, and is maintained at a temperature of 200-450°C (0034). It is noted that the ZnO is considered to be an adsorptive desulfurization catalyst as is taught by applicant (applicant’s own 0030 of the as filed specification).
Regarding claim 9, Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization system 400 to include a CPOx reactor 200 and a cathode heat exchanger 410A are thermally connected to fuel conduit 402A which is connected as an inlet to the desulfurization reactor 450 (0035-0036 and figures 1 and 4) and are thus considered to heat the fuel prior to delivery, via conduit 402A, of the fuel to the reactor 450.
Regarding claim 10, Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization system 400 to include a CPOx reactor 200 and a cathode heat exchanger 410A are thermally connected to fuel conduit 402A which is connected as an inlet to the desulfurization reactor 450 (0035-0036 and figures 1 and 4). Both are considered to constitute a “heater” as they provide heat.
Regarding claim 11, Weingaertner teaches a desulfurization system 400 that is included in fuel cell system 100 as shown in figure 1. Figure 1 also shows the outlet 402B of the desulfurization system 400 is ultimately fed to stack 102.
Regarding claim 21, Weingaertner teaches a desulfurization system 400 that is included in fuel cell system 100. The desulfurization system 400 includes a desulfurization reactor 450 including a metal oxide such as ZnO. A CPOx reactor 200 and a cathode heat exchanger 410A are thermally connected to fuel conduit 402A which is connected as an inlet to the desulfurization reactor 450 (0035-0036 and figures 1 and 4) and are thus considered to heat the fuel prior to delivery, via conduit 402A, of the fuel to the reactor 450. It is noted that the ZnO is considered to be an adsorptive desulfurization catalyst as is taught by applicant (applicant’s own 0030 of the as filed specification).
Regarding claim 25, Weingaertner teaches that during startup a CPOx blower 204 may provide air to the CPOx reactor 200 at a temperature of 600-800°C (0023).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3-7, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weingaertner et al (WO 2020/055639) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Katikaneni et al (US 2005/0022449).
Regarding claim 3, Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization system 400 that is included in fuel cell system 100, as discussed above. Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization reactor 450 including a metal oxide, such as ZnO (0034). It is noted that the ZnO is considered to be an adsorptive desulfurization catalyst as is taught by applicant (applicant’s own 0030 of the as filed specification).
Weingaertner does not explicitly teach the catalyst to include a hydrodesulfurization catalyst, as claimed.
Katikaneni teaches a desulfurization system for use with fuel cells in order to remove sulfur and sulfur-containing compounds from the fuel gas before entering the fuel cell (0003). The current state-of-the-art uses a combination of a hydrodesulfurization reaction with a zinc oxide adsorption to remove sulfur-containing compounds from fuel gas (0004) wherein the hydrodesulfurization system uses a catalyst (0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the hydrodesulfurization system including a catalyst of Katikaneni with the ZnO reaction of Weingaertner as such a combination is the known state-of-the-art, as taught by Katikaneni.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Katikaneni teaches the current state-of-the-art uses a combination of a hydrodesulfurization reaction with a zinc oxide adsorption to remove sulfur-containing compounds from fuel gas (0004) wherein the hydrodesulfurization system uses a catalyst (0006).
Katikaneni does not explicitly teach the adsorption reaction being downstream from the hydrodesulfurization reaction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have the reactions in such an order as there are only 2 reactions so an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the adsorption reaction being downstream with sufficient specificity.
Regarding claim 5, Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization system 400 to be initially fed via fuel inlet 300 (figure 1), considered to be the instantly claimed fuel source.
Weingaertner does not explicitly teach utilizing a mixer to mix heated fuel and additional fuel prior to entry to the reaction vessel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to mix the heated fuel with additional fuel as such is a known means of affecting temperature and concentration and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized mixing heated fuel and fuel via a mixer without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization system 400 that is included in fuel cell system 100, as discussed above. Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization system 400 to be initially fed via fuel inlet 300 (figure 1).
Weingaertner does not explicitly teach the fuel source to be a hydrogen tank or an electrolyzer, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize a hydrogen tank or an electrolyzer as the hydrogen fuel source as both are extremely well known hydrogen fuel sources for fuel cell systems and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized these as obvious to try without undue experimentation and with an extremely reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Weingaertner teaches a CPOx reactor 200 and a cathode heat exchanger 410A are thermally connected to fuel conduit 402A which is connected as an inlet to the desulfurization reactor 450 (0035-0036 and figures 1 and 4) and are thus considered to heat the fuel prior to delivery, via conduit 402A, of the fuel to the reactor 450.
Regarding claim 22, Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization system 400 that is included in fuel cell system 100, as discussed above. Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization reactor 450 including a metal oxide, such as ZnO (0034). It is noted that the ZnO is considered to be an adsorptive desulfurization catalyst as is taught by applicant (applicant’s own 0030 of the as filed specification).
Weingaertner does not explicitly teach the catalyst to include a hydrodesulfurization catalyst, as claimed.
Katikaneni teaches a desulfurization system for use with fuel cells in order to remove sulfur and sulfur-containing compounds from the fuel gas before entering the fuel cell (0003). The current state-of-the-art uses a combination of a hydrodesulfurization reaction with a zinc oxide adsorption to remove sulfur-containing compounds from fuel gas (0004) wherein the hydrodesulfurization system uses a catalyst (0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the hydrodesulfurization system including a catalyst of Katikaneni with the ZnO reaction of Weingaertner as such a combination is the known state-of-the-art, as taught by Katikaneni.
Additionally, Katikaneni does not explicitly teach the hydrodesulfurization reaction being located upstream from the adsorptive reaction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have the reactions in such an order as there are only 2 reactions so an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the hydrodesulfurization reaction being located upstream from the adsorptive reaction with sufficient specificity.
Regarding claim 23, Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization system 400 to be initially fed via fuel inlet 300 (figure 1), considered to be the instantly claimed fuel source.
Weingaertner does not explicitly teach utilizing a mixer to mix heated fuel and additional fuel prior to entry to the reaction vessel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to mix the heated fuel with additional fuel as such is a known means of affecting temperature and concentration and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized mixing heated fuel and fuel via a mixer without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 12, 26, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weingaertner et al (WO 2020/055639).
Regarding claim 12, Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization system 400 that is included in fuel cell system 100, as discussed above.
Weingaertner does not explicitly teach the fuel cell system 100 to include a plurality of fuel cell systems, each including fuel cell power modules and a power conditioning module electrically connected to the power modules, as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to duplicate the power system to a plurality of power systems and also to include fuel cell power modules and a power conditioning module electrically connected thereto, as these are well known and widely used components of fuel cell systems and would have been well within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan as obvious to try as the duplicated power system of Weingaertner without undue experimentation and with an extremely reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 26, Weingaertner teaches the desulfurization system 400 that is included in fuel cell system 100, as discussed above.
Weingaertner does not explicitly teach the fuel cell system 100 to include a plurality of fuel cell systems, each including fuel cell power modules and a power conditioning module electrically connected to the power modules, as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to duplicate the power system to a plurality of power systems and also to include fuel cell power modules and a power conditioning module electrically connected thereto, as these are well known and widely used components of fuel cell systems and would have been well within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan as obvious to try as the duplicated power system of Weingaertner without undue experimentation and with an extremely reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 27, Weingaertner teaches the desulfurized fuel to be mixed with exhaust from the anode exhaust cooler prior to flowing to the stack 102 (0024-0026).
Regarding claim 28, Weingaertner teaches the use of a CPOx reactor, as discussed above.
Weingaertner does not explicitly teach the reactor being configured to generate carbon monoxide that is provided to the reaction vessel, as claimed.
However, as the CPOx reactor of Weingaertner is structurally the same as the instantly claimed reactor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to configure it as claimed dependent upon the desired fuel concentration entering the desulfurization reaction vessel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/SARAH A. SLIFKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 October 14, 2026
