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 .
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshitomi (US 2023/0352717 A1), in view of Clark (WO 2023/238066 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshitomi teaches a duct for a fuel cell, the duct comprising: a duct body defining an aperture configured to allow fluid to flow therethrough (paragraphs 7-12), the duct body including a flexible network configured to provide adjustable flexibility to the duct body (formed flexibly…with rubber, paragraph 12), but fails to teach a surface coating disposed on an outer surface of the duct body, the surface coating providing the duct body with one or more of flame retardance or and structural integrity.
However, in the related art of fuel hoses, Clark teaches two surface coatings disposed on an outer surface of the duct body (reinforcement layer 108, paragraph 64; polyamide barrier layer 104, paragraph 59; figure 1), the surface coatings providing the duct body with one or more of flame retardance and/or structural integrity (braided reinforcement cover layer, paragraphs 15-17; additives such as…reinforcing agents, flameproofing agents, paragraph 59). Clark also teaches a flexible network configured to provide adjustable flexibility to the duct body (paragraphs 17, 20, and 76). Yoshitomi notes that the duct supplying fuel to the cathode must be able to absorb external force to make it possible to improve the impact resistance of the fuel cell (paragraph 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the duct of Yoshitomi with the claimed coating because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the desired impact resistance in accordance with the teachings of Yoshitomi.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the duct of claim 1, but Yoshitomi fails to teach wherein the duct body is comprised of one or more of polyamide, polyphthalamide, polybutylene terephthalate, polyketone, polyether ether ketone, polyetherketoneketone, polyimide, polyamide imide, or poly(ether-ester) elastomer.
However, Clark teaches wherein the duct body is comprised of polyamide (paragraphs 8 and 59). Clark notes that polyamide is used as a gas or fluid permeation barrier layer (paragraph 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the duct of Yoshitomi with the claimed material because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted characteristic in accordance with the teachings of Clark.
Regarding claim 4, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the duct of claim 1, but Yoshitomi fails to teach wherein the flexible network is comprised of fabric. However, Clark teaches wherein the flexible network is comprised of fabric (braided reinforcement cover layer, paragraphs 15-17), see analysis for claim 1 above. Claim 4 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the duct of claim 1, but Yoshitomi fails to teach wherein the duct body and surface coating are produced using spraying, curing, molding, or three dimensional printing.
However, Clark teaches where in the duct body and surface coating are produced using vulcanization (paragraph 20). Clark notes that this step allows for the rubber layer to covalently bond to a polyamide layer without an intervening adhesive layer (paragraph 8). Clark also notes that this design removes the hazards associated with glue adhesives (paragraph 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the duct of Yoshitomi with the claimed production method because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted characteristics in accordance with the teachings of Clark.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the duct of claim 1, but Yoshitomi fails to teach wherein the surface coating is a continuous coating over the outer surface of the duct body. However, Clark teaches wherein the surface coating is a continuous coating over the outer surface of the duct body (reinforcement layer 108, paragraph 64; polyamide barrier layer 104, paragraph 59; figure 1), see analysis for claim 1 above. Claim 7 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the duct of claim 1, but Yoshitomi fails to teach wherein the duct body plasticizes when exposed to hydrogen gas. However, Clark teaches a duct comprising an ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (EPDM) (paragraph 20), which hydrogen can permeate into and cause plasticization. Clark notes that EPDM is used to help maintain heat resistance upwards of 150°C while simultaneously maintaining the low temperature sealing capability (-40°C) (paragraph 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the duct of Yoshitomi with the claimed effect because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted characteristics in accordance with the teachings of Clark.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the duct of claim 1, but Yoshitomi fails to teach wherein the surface coating is comprised of cross-linked polymers. However, Clark teaches wherein the surface coating is comprised of cross-linked polymers, specifically hydrogenated nitrile rubber covalent linkages to the N terminal amine and/or the carbon backbone of a polyamide thermoplastic resin (paragraphs 7 and 59), see analysis for claim 6 above. Claim 9 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the duct of claim 1, and Yoshitomi teaches a fuel cell incorporating the duct (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the fuel cell of claim 10, and Yoshitomi teaches a vehicle incorporating the fuel cell (paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshitomi teaches a fuel cell system comprising: an anode; a cathode; an anode duct configured to provide fluid transmission to the anode; and a cathode duct configured to provide fluid transmission to the cathode, at least one of the anode duct or the cathode duct being a flexible duct comprising (paragraphs 7-12): a duct body comprised of a flexible network configured to provide adjustable flexibility to the duct body (formed flexibly…with rubber, paragraph 12), but fails to teach a surface coating disposed on an outer surface of the duct body, the surface coating comprised of cross-linked polymers or flame retardant materials. However, Clark teaches this limitation, see analysis for claims 9 and 6 above. Claim 12 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 13, as noted above Clark teaches the use of flame retardants in the surface coating (paragraph 59). It is noted that the claim is not limited to the cross-linked embodiment, since such is not positively cited, and is thus rejectable by the teaching of flame retardant material by Clark.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the fuel cell of claim 12, and Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches this limitation, see analysis for claim 7 above. Claim 15 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the fuel cell of claim 12, and Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches this limitation, see analysis for claim 8 above. Claim 16 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the fuel cell of claim 12, and Yoshitomi teaches a vehicle incorporating the fuel cell (paragraph 45).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshitomi in view of Clark, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Davidson (US 9178241 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the duct of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the duct body is reinforced using one or more of glass fiber, carbon fiber, or graphene. However, in related art Davidson teaches a fuel cell conduit made of a composite which comprises carbon fiber and imparts high strength and light weight to the conduit that conveys hydrogen as a fuel (column 3, lines 7-9, 17-19 and 26-29). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize carbon fiber in the conduit of Yoshitomi in view of Clark because one having ordinary skill would have been motivated to achieve the above noted benefits in accordance with the teachings of Davidson.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshitomi in view of Clark, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Lan (CN 117004305 A, referencing machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the duct of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the flexible network includes an adhesive containing soft segments and hard segments.
However, in the related art of coatings for hydrogen equipment in fuel cells used in vehicles, Lan teaches a polyurea elastomer which is made of hard segments within a matrix of soft segments, resulting in high elastic modulus, high impact resistance, wear resistance, fast curing, and strong adhesion to substrates (paragraph 3). Lan also notes that the use of this material can effectively block hazards such as fragments and shock waves (paragraph 3). An elastomer of this type used with rubber will form cross-link bonds as it cures, thus becoming part of the duct body network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the duct of claim 1 and incorporate the claimed adhesive because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted characteristics in accordance with the teachings of Lan.
Claims 14 and 18-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshitomi in view of Clark, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Bierce (US 11833787 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshitomi in view of Clark teaches the fuel cell of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the flame retardant materials include aryl phosphate, aluminum phosphate, aluminum-zinc phosphate, nitrogen-phosphorous derivatives, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, iron oxide, or graphene oxide.
However, in the related art of pipes for conveying coolants in vehicles, Bierce teaches a pipe containing flame retardant materials, specifically nitrogen phosphorous compounds (column 2, lines 11-22; column 3, lines 1-10). Bierce notes that the materials used to create such pipes in vehicles must pass burning tests required by automotive manufacturers (column 1, lines 51-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the fuel cell of claim 12, and incorporate the claimed materials because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted characteristics in accordance with the teachings of Bierce.
Regarding claim 18, Yoshitomi teaches a duct for a fuel cell, the duct comprising: a duct body defining an aperture extending along a length of the duct body and configured to allow fluid including at least one of water and hydrogen gas (H2) to flow therethrough (paragraphs 7-12, and 47), the duct body including a flexible network comprised of one or more of a polymeric material or an inorganic material (formed flexibly…with rubber, paragraph 12), but fails to teach a surface coating disposed on an outer surface of the duct body and comprising one or more of epoxy, acrylic base, polyurethane, aryl phosphate, aluminum phosphate, aluminum-zinc phosphate, nitrogen-phosphorous derivatives, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, iron oxide, or graphene oxide, the surface coating being configured to provide one or more of increased structural properties to the duct body or enhanced flame retardance properties to the duct body.
However, Bierce teaches a surface a surface coating disposed on an outer surface of the duct body comprising nitrogen-phosphorous compounds (column 2, lines 11-22; column 3, lines 1-10). Bierce notes that the materials used to create such pipes in vehicles must pass burning tests required by automotive manufacturers (column 1, lines 51-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the duct of Yoshitomi with the claimed coating because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted characteristics in accordance with the teachings of Bierce.
Regarding claim 19, Yoshitomi in view of Bierce teaches the duct of claim 18, and Yoshitomi teaches a fuel cell incorporating the duct (abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Yoshitomi in view of Bierce teaches the fuel cell of claim 19, and Yoshitomi teaches a vehicle incorporating the fuel cell (paragraphs 45 and 47).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENAD NAKDALI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3286. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 AM - 4:00 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, Philip Tucker can be reached at (571)-272-1095. 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.
/R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights