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
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5, 9-10, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chellappa et al. (US 20220158204 A1) in view of Sung et al. (US 20200032688 A1), Yoshida et al. (JP 2002106798 A), and Li et al. (CN 217976361 U). It is noted that the disclosures of Yoshida et al. and Li et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claims 3-5, 9-10, 15, and 17:
Chellappa et al. teaches a fuel cell system including a hydrogen source, which provides hydrogen fuel gas to the anode side in the fuel cell (0063).
However, Chellappa et al. does not teach a hydrogen storage assembly including a hydrogen tank for storing liquid hydrogen, at least one hydrogen sorption/catalyst unit, a valve assembly, and a fuel cell exhaust gas apparatus.
Sung et al. teaches a system for abatement of pollutants of an internal combustion engine and that the invention is for on-board vehicle hydrogen generation (0001, 0015). The system includes liquid hydrogen that can be stored in a hydrogen storage article, i.e. a tank (0127).
Sung et al. also teaches a system for abatement of pollutants of an internal combustion engine, i.e. in a vehicle (0015). The system includes liquid hydrogen that can be stored in a hydrogen storage article, i.e. a tank (0127). Sung et al. also discloses a catalytic article, i.e. sorption/catalyst unit, comprising an oxidation catalyst composition disposed on a substrate (0169). The oxidation catalyst composition comprises one coating layer without any optional sorbent composition and a second layer could include (or consist entirely of) one or more optional sorbent compositions (0187). Hydrogen along with exhaust gas enters the catalytic article (0018), which would inherently result in sorption and catalytic conversion of the gaseous hydrogen. The hydrogen is in the form of gas (0213). The tank and catalytic article, i.e. sorption/catalyst unit, correspond to the claimed hydrogen storage assembly.
Sung et al. discloses that the substrate is a ceramic or metal having a honeycomb structure (0171). Sung et al. also discloses a monolithic substrate having fine parallel gas flow passages extending there through from an inlet or an outlet face of the substrate such that passages are open to fluid flow there through (0170).
Sung et al. discloses that the oxidation catalyst composition coatings in the different layers may extend the entire length of the substrate or may each extend a portion of the length of the substrate and may overlay or underlay each other, either partially or entirely (0186).
Sung et al. discloses a “functional article”, meaning an article comprising a substrate having a functional coating composition disposed thereon, in particular a catalyst and/or sorbent coating composition (0116). Further disclosed is an oxidation catalyst composition coated onto a substrate (0166).
Sung et al. discloses a top coat slurry, i.e. a sorption/catalyst unit, where zeolite beta, i.e. a physisorption material, was added to the slurry (0211). Given that Sung et al. discloses a sorption/catalyst unit as presently claimed, the sorption/catalyst unit would inherently be configured for the adsorption of hydrogen and for catalytic oxidation of hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen forming water.
Sung et al. discloses a top coat slurry, i.e. a sorption/catalyst unit, by impregnating Pd nitrate on a Mn/A support (5 wt.% Mn) followed by Ba hydroxide solution. The impregnated powder was added to a Pt solution (0211). Given that Sung et al. discloses a sorption/catalyst unit as presently claimed, the sorption/catalyst unit would inherently be configured for catalytic oxidation of hydrogen.
In light of the motivation for using a system that includes a hydrogen storage assembly disclosed by Sung et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system that includes a hydrogen storage assembly in the fuel cell system of Chellappa et al. in order to reduce pollutants.
Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al. do not disclose a valve assembly or fuel cell exhaust gas apparatus.
Yoshida et al. teaches a liquid hydrogen storage tank and an opening valve for releasing hydrogen gas from the liquid hydrogen storage tank to the outside when the internal pressure of the liquid hydrogen storage tank becomes higher than a predetermined pressure (0004).
PNG
media_image1.png
373
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoshida et al. also teaches in Figure 2 above, the hydrogen gas 11 that flows into the catalytic combustor 9 uses the oxygen in the air that flows in with the hydrogen gas 11 as an oxidizing agent, and undergoes an oxidation reaction through the catalytic action of the catalytic combustor 9, turning into water. This water and the air that has been converted into combustion gases are discharged to the outside through the exhaust pipe 15 from the catalytic converter 9. Therefore, the hydrogen concentration in the exhaust gas discharged from the exhaust pipe 15 will be extremely low (0019).
Further, Yoshida et al. teaches in a liquid hydrogen storage device 3, the air necessary for burning the hydrogen gas 11 is supplied to the catalytic combustor 9 by the ejector 8, so an external power source for air supply is not required. Therefore, control for air supply can be easily performed, and the liquid hydrogen storage device 3 can be simplified and miniaturized, costs can be reduced (0020), and low nitrogen and ammonia emissions can be achieved (n0004).
In light of the motivation for using a hydrogen storage system and catalytic converter disclosed by Yoshida et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a hydrogen storage system and catalytic converter in the fuel cell system of Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al. in order to simplify the system, reduce costs, and achieve low nitrogen and ammonia emissions.
Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al. and Yoshida et al. do not disclose a fuel cell exhaust gas apparatus for receiving a flow of cell exhaust gas from at least one fuel cell.
Li et al. teaches a pollutant emission treatment system based on an ammonia-hydrogen fuel power system of a utility model that uses hydrogen obtained from an ammonia cracker to provide hydrogen for the hydrogen fuel cell, and then uses the hydrogen fuel cell to provide power for the electric heating catalytic converter, thereby improving the energy utilization rate (n0036).
In light of the motivation for using the hydrogen fuel cell to provide power to the electric heating catalytic converter disclosed by Li et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hydrogen fuel cell to provide power to the electric heating catalytic converter in the fuel cell of Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al. and Yoshida et al. in order to improve the energy utilization rate.
Regarding claim 18:
Further, it is noted that the recitation in the claims that the fuel cell system is “for a vehicle” is merely an intended use. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al., Yoshida et al., and Li et al. disclose a fuel cell system as presently claimed, it is clear that the fuel cell system of Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al., Yoshida et al., and Li et al. would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. used in a vehicle, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chellappa et al. (US 20220158204 A1) in view of Sung et al. (US 20200032688 A1), Yoshida et al. (JP 2002106798 A), Li et al. (CN 217976361 U), and Hamedi et al. (Energy-efficient heating strategies of diesel oxidation catalyst for low emissions vehicles).
Regarding claims 6-7:
Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al., Yoshida et al., and Li et al. teach a fuel cell system as set forth above.
However, Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al., Yoshida et al., and Li et al. do not teach a heater assigned to at least one substrate or an electrically energizable heater.
Hamedi et al. teaches an electrical heater that uniformly electrically heated a catalyst substrate (Section 2.1.5 paragraph 1 lines 5-6).
Hamedi et al. also teaches that electrically heating a substrate can decrease carbon monoxide (CO) and total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions (Section 3.1 paragraph 1 lines 9-10).
In light of the motivation for using an electrical heater on a substrate by Hamedi et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrical heater with the substrate in the fuel cell system of Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al., Yoshida et al., and Li et al. in order to decrease CO and THC emissions.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chellappa et al. (US 20220158204 A1) in view of Sung et al. (US 20200032688 A1), Yoshida et al. (JP 2002106798 A), Li et al. (CN 217976361 U), and Napán et al. (First-principles studies of lithium hydride series for hydrogen storage).
Regarding claims 11-13:
Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al., Yoshida et al., and Li et al. teach a fuel cell system as set forth above.
However, Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al., Yoshida et al., and Li et al. do not teach the usage of lithium metal in sorption material.
Napán et al. teaches that LiH_221 is the best structure to carry out the storage of hydrogen (Page 5788 column 2 lines 4-7).
Napán et al. also teaches that LiH_221 is less expensive compared to other structures (Page 5788 column 2 lines 11-14).
In light of the motivation for using LiH_221 by Napán et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LiH_221 in the sorption/catalyst unit of the fuel cell system in Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al., Yoshida et al., and Li et al. in order to reduce costs of materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Sung et al. discloses a completely different function and structure of such a system containing a hydrogen storage and a hydrogen reacting catalyst and does not mention the problem of an inappropriate pressure increase within such a hydrogen tank and does not propose any measures for handling and avoiding such a pressure increase.
However, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Further, Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al. is now combined with Yoshida et al. and Li et al. which teach the presently claimed valve assembly and fuel exhaust gas system.
Applicant argues hydrogen has to be handled as some kind of a waste product in critical situations, that is, upon an excess pressure increase within a hydrogen tank, in which hydrogen has to be released from the hydrogen tank without being required for operating the fuel cell. For handling such potentially critical situations, the claimed hydrogen sorption/catalyst unit provides both the function of absorbing hydrogen and catalytically oxidizing hydrogen to water.
However, given that Sung et al. disclose hydrogen sorption/catalyst unit identical to that presently claimed, it would necessarily provide both the function of absorbing hydrogen and catalytically oxidizing hydrogen to water.
Further, Chellappa et al. in view of Sung et al. is now combined with Yoshida et al. and Li et al. which teach the presently claimed valve assembly and fuel exhaust gas system.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendment overcomes the claim objection of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights