DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 5, “configured received” should be changed to --configured to receive--.
In claim 16, line 5, “configured received” should be changed to --configured to receive--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-2, 5, 7-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eagle (WO 2022113748, hereinafter the US filing US 2024/0026983 will be referenced as a translation) in view of Clingerman et al. (US 2021/0135256).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Eagle discloses in Figs. 1-6 a hydrogen purge system and a fuel cell vehicle (paragraph 26) comprising:
a fuel cell stack in which multiple unit cells are stacked to generate electricity using electrochemical reactions of hydrogen and oxygen (paragraphs 26-27);
a purge valve 1 having a hydrogen purge flow path (from inlet 21 and through seat 26) and configured to be mounted on a hydrogen outlet of an anode of a fuel cell stack (paragraph 30); and
a controller (comprising the controller for supplying current to the solenoid 3) configured to perform a current control or PWM control on the purge valve 1 to adjust an opening degree of the hydrogen purge flow path of the purge valve 1.
Eagle lacks teaching that the purge valve is controlled according to a differential pressure between the anode and a cathode of the fuel cell stack.
Clingerman teaches in Fig. 7 that a purge valve 72 for controlling hydrogen from an anode (paragraph 49) is controlled according to a differential pressure between the anode and a cathode of the fuel cell stack (paragraphs 14 and 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve disclosed by Eagle to be controlled according to a differential pressure between the anode and a cathode of the fuel cell stack to maintain proper operation and pressures within the system/fuel cell, as Clingerman teaches (paragraphs 14, 16, 49), and such control provides for automatic sustainability of operable conditions.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Eagle discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the purge valve 1 comprises: a valve housing 2 with the hydrogen purge flow path formed therein and configured to fluidly communicate with the hydrogen outlet of the anode; a drive unit case 31 mounted on the valve housing 2; a coil 35 in the inner space of the drive unit case 31, the coil 35 being configured receive current based on the current control or PWM control of the controller; a plunger 32 configured to be movable forward and backward in the drive unit case 31; and a diaphragm 5 (because the valve 5 flexes to seat and unseat against seat 26) coupled on a front end of the plunger 32 and configured to adjust an opening degree of the hydrogen purge flow path based on forward and backward stroke of the plunger 32 according to an amount of current applied to the coil, wherein a ventilation hole (comprising the bore in the bottom end of the drive unit case 32 that is disposed in the bore in the top end of the housing 2) penetrates through the valve housing 2 and the drive unit case 32, the ventilation hole being configured to maintain an internal space of the drive unit case 32 (at least above the diaphragm 6) at atmospheric pressure (via the vent hole 33b, 36a opening to the atmosphere, paragraph 38, like the applicant’s ventilation hole 130 and ventilation hole 132).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Eagle discloses in Figs. 1-6 that a vent hole 33b, 36a in the drive unit case 32 fluidly communicates the ventilation hole with the atmosphere (paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 7, Eagle discloses in Figs. 1-6 a method for controlling a hydrogen purge system (as described above), the method comprising:
determining an amount of current to be applied to a coil of a purge valve;
applying the determined amount of current to the coil of the purge valve by a current control or PWM control; and
adjusting an opening degree of a hydrogen purge flow path of the purge valve by a forward and backward stroke of a plunger according to the amount of current applied to the coil of the purge valve.
Eagle lacks teaching that the determined amount of current is determined by checking a differential pressure between an anode and a cathode of a fuel cell stack; and determining an amount of current to be applied to a coil of a purge valve based on current-hydrogen purge amount mapping data per differential pressure between the anode and the cathode.
Clingerman teaches in Fig. 7 a method for controlling a hydrogen purge system, the method comprising: checking a differential pressure between an anode and a cathode of a fuel cell stack (paragraphs 14, 16, and 49); determining an amount of openness of a purge valve 72 (analogous to the amount of current to be applied to the coil of the purge valve disclosed by Eagle) based on current-hydrogen purge amount mapping data per differential pressure between the anode and the cathode (paragraphs 14, 16, and 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve disclosed by Eagle to have the current applied to the coil of the purge valve be determined by the pressure difference between the anode and cathode to maintain proper operation and pressures within the system/fuel cell, as Clingerman teaches (paragraphs 14, 16, 49), and such control provides for automatic sustainability of operable conditions.
Regarding claim 8, Eagle discloses in Figs. 1-6 further comprising adjusting the opening degree of the hydrogen purge flow path by a diaphragm 5 mounted on a front end of the plunger 32 (via intermediate diaphragm 6 and biasing of spring 7) according to the amount of current applied to the coil 35.
Regarding claim 9, Clingerman teaches in Fig. 7 wherein if the hydrogen concentration of the fuel cell stack is less than a lower limit reference value, checking a measured differential pressure between an node and a cathode (because hydrogen concentration of the fuel cell stack is always monitored, as shown by Fig. 8 and disclosed in paragraph 69, and/or because “a lower limit reference value” could be any value because it is undefined), and wherein if the hydrogen concentration of the fuel cell stack is greater than an upper limit reference value after the opening degree of the hydrogen purge flow path is adjusted, performing an off control for closing the purge valve (paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 10, Eagle discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the purge valve 1 includes a valve housing 2 having the hydrogen purge flow path therethrough, and the valve housing 2 having a drive unit case 31 with the coil 35 and the plunger 32 installed in an internal space therein, and wherein the method further comprises maintaining the internal space of the drive unit case 31 (at least above the diaphragm 6) at atmospheric pressure via a ventilation hole (comprising the bore in the bottom end of the drive unit case 32 that is disposed in the bore in the top end of the housing 2) in and fluidly communicating through the valve housing 2 and the drive unit case 31, and via a vent hole 33b, 36a in the drive unit case 31 that fluidly communicates with the ventilation hole.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Eagle and Clingerman teaches determining that the purge valve fails if a phenomenon occurs consecutively five or more times that an amount of fluid containing hydrogen and water discharged to outside through the hydrogen purge flow path does not exceed a reference amount after the opening degree of the hydrogen purge flow path is adjusted through the current control or PWM control for the purge valve (because such determination of failure can be determined by anything, including the user observing the system, and the reference amount can be any value, because such determination doesn’t define what makes the determination and the value of the reference amount is not define).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Eagle and Clingerman teaches determining that the purge valve fails if a phenomenon occurs consecutively five or more times that an amount of fluid containing hydrogen and water discharged to outside through the hydrogen purge flow path exceeds a reference amount after the opening degree of the hydrogen purge flow path is adjusted through the current control or PWM control for the purge valve (because such determination of failure can be determined by anything, including the user observing the system, and the reference amount can be any value, because such determination doesn’t define what makes the determination and the value of the reference amount is not define).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Eagle and Clingerman teaches determining that the purge valve fails if a phenomenon occurs consecutively five or more times that fluid containing hydrogen and water is not discharged through the hydrogen purge flow path after the opening degree of the hydrogen purge flow path is adjusted through the current control or PWM control for the purge valve (because such determination of failure can be determined by anything, including the user observing the failure condition claimed).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Eagle and Clingerman teaches further comprising determining that the purge valve fails if a phenomenon occurs consecutively five or more times that fluid containing hydrogen and water is discharged through the hydrogen purge flow path after an off control for closing the purge valve (because such determination of failure can be determined by anything, including the user observing the failure condition claimed).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eagle in view of Clingerman, as applied to claims 2 and 16, respectively, above, and further in view of Vitesco (DE 102021202117, hereinafter the US filing reference US 2024/0141853 will be referenced as a translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Eagle discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the controller is configured to perform the current control or PWM control on the coil 35 of the purge valve 1, and Clingerman teaches using current-hydrogen purge amount data per differential pressure between the anode and the cathode, after checking a measured differential pressure between the anode and the cathode (paragraphs 14, 16, and 49).
Eagle and Clingerman lacks teaching that the data is mapped.
Vitesco teaches referencing mapped data for determining the current to be supplied to the coil of a solenoid valve (paragraph 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve in the combination of Eagle and Clingerman to have the current supplied to the coil of the solenoid valve be based off of predetermined mapped data, as Vitesco teaches (paragraph 72), to simplify operation, as opposed to having to implement computer components or software that processes calculations, including constant or the same reoccurring calculations.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eagle in view of Clingerman, as applied to claim 5 and 19, respectively, above, and further in view of Riddel (US 4,005,733).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Eagle discloses a vent hole, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that the vent hole includes a membrane filter therein configured for preventing reverse infiltration of moisture.
Riddel teaches in Figs. 1-2 that the vent hole (comprising port 30 and the contiguous passage through the cap with port 30) includes a membrane filter 34 therein configured for preventing reverse infiltration of moisture (wherein the “foreign matter” disclosed in col. 2, lines 12-14 as being prevented from entering the valve is seen as including moisture).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve disclosed by Eagle to include a membrane filter in the vent hole to prevent foreign material from entering the valve, as Riddel teaches (col. 2, lines 12-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious, in combination with the other limitations recited in claims 4 and 18, the ventilation hole in the valve housing penetrates through to a first region between a first O-ring and a second O-ring, wherein the first O-ring is configured for sealing the first region of the valve housing from outside, and wherein the second O-ring is configured for sealing the first region of the valve housing from the hydrogen purge flow path.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights