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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 10 in view of M is improper because the rejection relies on different embodiments, this is not persuasive. This is not persuasive because, while the embodiments in Fig. 12-14 are different embodiments of the fan tube of the embodiment in Fig. 1, the disclosure states that “the high efficiency hydrogen fueled thermodynamic fuel cell system may be utilized with a fan tube propulsion system” [0052]. This means that the rest of the system is included in these new embodiments in Fig. 12-14, but is just not shown, meaning the components referenced are all in one embodiment.
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 10, 12, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220009379-A1, (M) in view of US-20250058884-A1, (B).
Regarding claim 10, M teaches a fuel cell system (300) comprising: a compressor (305); a fuel cell (363) coupled to receive compressed air ([0038] particularly “0.2 MPa” and “in condition to enter the fuel cell”) from the compressor; and a fuel cell return line (see Fig. 4A, portion in dots is exhaust flow path) having a first end (part of fuel cell line in Fig. 4A which is attached to the fuel cell) coupled to receive compressed air (340, “exhaust” described in [0036]) from a cathode (fuel cell is a PEMFC [0039] which must necessarily have a cathode, if the exhaust is a mixture of the fuel and air exiting the fuel cell, it must come in part from the cathode) of the fuel cell and a second end (404, see any of Fig. 12-14, which is at the end of the dotted line in Fig. 4A) coupled to provide the pressurized exhaust (the exhaust exits ate 0.2 MPa, making it pressurized [0040]) to a ram channel (space bounded by 410, see Fig. 12).
M teaches the fuel cell system is part of an aircraft (160) and that the air intake and outlet are formed in a nacelle (see Fig. 13).
M does not teach a throttling device coupled to an ejector in the ram channel.
B teaches a nacelle (1400) with a nozzle (1412) forming an outlet (1409) that exhaust (1408) passes out of. B teaches the nozzle may be a variable area nozzle [0171]. B teaches the benefit of the variable area nozzle is that the velocity of the exhaust can be controlled by changing the area [0115] which enables the optimization of a fan power and the changing of thrust during different phases of a flight. B teaches the nacelle is for an aircraft with a fuel cell (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to add the variable area nozzle of B to the nacelle of M by putting it at the end of the ram channel of M. It would have been obvious to do this because B teaches the benefit of enabling the optimization of fan power and the ability to change thrust during different periods of flight.
The nozzle of B increases or decreases the air velocity leaving the nacelle, which makes it a throttling device. The outlet of the nacelle ejects the air, making it an ejector. The pressurized exhaust enters the ram channel which is connected to the throttling device, so the pressurized exhaust would therefore be provided to the throttling device. The addition of the 10.4 kPa exhaust [0040] to the area downstream of the heat exchanger (see Fig. 4A which better highlights the exhaust flowpath, it exits after the heat exchanger) would increase the pressure following the heat exchanger, even if that is not explicitly disclosed. This is because the air is at 7.6 kPa at the intake [0038], so the exhaust is at a higher pressure. Therefore, because a higher pressure is provided following the heat exchanger in the ram channel, this must decrease the overall pressure drop of the channel because a higher pressure is provided at the end which is what is required by the instant claim 10. All of the necessary components have been provided in the specified positions, so the claimed effect must happen as a result.
This combination of M and B further teaches all of the recited requirements of claim 10 of the instant because the second end of the fuel cell return line terminates in the nacelle and the end of the flow path of the fuel cell return therefore is at the outlet of the nacelle, making the variable area nozzle the second end of the fuel cell return line in this combination of M and B.
Regarding claim 12, M teaches the compressor compresses the air to at least two times ambient pressure ([0038], the inlet air into the system is at 7.6 kPa, which is the ambient pressure, the air exiting the compressor is 0.2 MPa which is at least two times the ambient pressure).
Regarding claim 16, M teaches a coolant loop (361) coupled to circulate cooling fluid (Claim 2 “cooling fluid” and 351 “water spray” [0036]) between the fuel cell and a heat exchanger (360).
Regarding claim 17, M teaches the coolant loop is a compression loop [0042]. A compression loop uses a cooling fluid that is a vapor in parts of the cycle. M teaches the intercooler cools the fuel cell, meaning it controls the fuel cell’s operating temperature [0042]. This means that M teaches the cooling fluid comprises a vapor and the coolant loop controls a fuel cell operating temperature, rendering claim 17 unpatentable over M and B.
Regarding claim 18, M teaches a PEM fuel cell [0039].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220009379-A1, (M), US-20250058884-A1, (B) and in further view of US-20030186097-A1, (D).
Regarding claim 13, M and B do not teach a humidifier for the air input of the fuel cell stack.
D teaches a humidifier (36, ERD) which uses humid exhaust from a fuel cell (12) to humidify process air [0026]. D teaches doing so helps maintain water balance in the system [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to place a humidification device like that of D in the fuel cell system of M and B in order to maintain the water balance of the system. M, B, nor D provide any reason for why this cannot be done and doing so would amount to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220009379-A1, (M), US-20250058884-A1, (B), and in further view of US-20030127618-A1, (W).
Regarding claim 14, the teachings of M and B are explained in the rejection of claim 10.
B does not explicitly teach a controller controlling the variable area nozzle.
B is silent to the specifics of the variable area nozzle.
W teaches a diaphragmed air valve (shown in Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6) with a varying area (see Fig. 4 where the valve is closed and Fig. 5 where the valve is open). W teaches the benefit of the valve is that the it maintains the shape of the air flow and the mass of the air is kept in tact due to the center opening nature of the valve [0004-0007, 00017]. W teaches the valve’s opening is controlled by the rotation of a part 2d [0019]. This means that 2d is a controller because it controls the size of the valve opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to elect the air valve design of W for the variable area nozzle of B in order to gain the benefit of a center opening valve which would maintain the shape of airflow and the mass of air moving through the nacelle of the combination of M and B. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so because it would amount to no more than electing a known design for a variable area valve with known benefits with a reasonable chance of success.
This combination of M, B and W would therefore teach all of the structural requirements of claim 14 of the instant because the controller (2d) would be coupled to control the throttling device which would be placed at the second end of the fuel cell return line as explained in the above rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, W teaches the valve’s opening is formed by curved plates (2c) and that the diameter of the opening (which is the distance between opposing plates) controls the rate of air flowing through the valve [0018]. The controller (2d) controls the size of this opening [0019].
Therefore, the combination of M, B, and W also teaches all of the structural requirements of claim 15.
Claims 21, 22, 24-26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220009379-A1, (M), US-20250058884-A1, (B), and in further view of US-20030127618-A1, (W).
Regarding claim 21, M teaches a fuel cell system (300) comprising: a compressor (305); a fuel cell (363) coupled to receive compressed air ([0038] particularly “0.2 MPa” and “in condition to enter the fuel cell”) from the compressor; and a fuel cell return line (see Fig. 4A, portion in dots is exhaust flow path) having a first end (part of fuel cell line in Fig. 4A which is attached to the fuel cell) coupled to receive compressed air (340, “exhaust” described in [0036]) from a cathode (fuel cell is a PEMFC [0039] which must necessarily have a cathode, if the exhaust is a mixture of the fuel and air exiting the fuel cell, it must come in part from the cathode) of the fuel cell and a second end (404, see any of Fig. 12-14, which is at the end of the dotted line in Fig. 4A) coupled to provide the pressurized exhaust (the exhaust exits ate 0.2 MPa, making it pressurized [0040]) to a ram channel (space bounded by 410, see Fig. 12).
M teaches the fuel cell system is part of an aircraft (160) and that the air intake and outlet are formed in a nacelle (see Fig. 13).
M does not teach a throttling device coupled to an ejector in the ram channel.
B teaches a nacelle (1400) with a nozzle (1412) forming an outlet (1409) that exhaust (1408) passes out of. B teaches the nozzle may be a variable area nozzle [0171]. B teaches the benefit of the variable area nozzle is that the velocity of the exhaust can be controlled by changing the area [0115] which enables the optimization of a fan power and the changing of thrust during different phases of a flight. B teaches the nacelle is for an aircraft with a fuel cell (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to add the variable area nozzle of B to the nacelle of M by putting it at the end of the ram channel of M. It would have been obvious to do this because B teaches the benefit of enabling the optimization of fan power and the ability to change thrust during different periods of flight.
B does not explicitly teach a controller controlling the variable area nozzle.
B is silent to the specifics of the variable area nozzle.
W teaches a diaphragmed air valve (shown in Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6) with a varying area (see Fig. 4 where the valve is closed and Fig. 5 where the valve is open). W teaches the benefit of the valve is that the it maintains the shape of the air flow and the mass of the air is kept in tact due to the center opening nature of the valve [0004-0007, 00017]. W teaches the valve’s opening is controlled by the rotation of a part 2d [0019]. This means that 2d is a controller because it controls the size of the valve opening. W teaches the valve’s opening is formed by curved plates (2c) and that the diameter of the opening (which is the distance between opposing plates) controls the rate of air flowing through the valve [0018]. The controller (2d) controls the size of this opening [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to elect the air valve design of W for the variable area nozzle of B in order to gain the benefit of a center opening valve which would maintain the shape of airflow and the mass of air moving through the nacelle of the combination of M and B. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so because it would amount to no more than electing a known design for a variable area valve with known benefits with a reasonable chance of success.
The nozzle of B increases or decreases the air velocity leaving the nacelle, which makes it a throttling device. The outlet of the nacelle ejects the air, making it an ejector. The pressurized exhaust enters the ram channel which is connected to the throttling device, so the pressurized exhaust would therefore be provided to the throttling device. The addition of the 10.4 kPa exhaust [0040] to the area downstream of the heat exchanger (see Fig. 4A which better highlights the exhaust flowpath, it exits after the heat exchanger) would increase the pressure following the heat exchanger, even if that is not explicitly disclosed. This is because the air is at 7.6 kPa at the intake [0038], so the exhaust is at a higher pressure. Therefore, because a higher pressure is provided following the heat exchanger in the ram channel, this must decrease the overall pressure drop of the channel because a higher pressure is provided at the end which is what is required by the instant claim 21. All of the necessary components have been provided in the specified positions, so the claimed effect must happen as a result.
This combination of M and B further teaches all of the recited requirements of claim 21 of the instant because the second end of the fuel cell return line terminates in the nacelle and the end of the flow path of the fuel cell return therefore is at the outlet of the nacelle, making the variable area nozzle the second end of the fuel cell return line in this combination of M, B and W.
Regarding claim 22, while M does not explicitly teach the throttling device exhausts the pressurized exhaust in the same direction as the airflow exiting the ejector, this must be the case because the exhaust ducts (404) rejoin the air with the flow from the fan (402) and the rest of the air of the airtube, which is all flowing towards the throttling device. This means that the ejector ejects the air in the same direction as the throttling device because the bulk flow of the air in the tube moves in that direction.
Regarding claim 24, M teaches a coolant loop (361) coupled to circulate cooling fluid (Claim 2 “cooling fluid” and 351 “water spray” [0036]) between the fuel cell and a heat exchanger (360).
Regarding claim 25, M teaches a first leg of the cooling loop leading from the fuel cell to the heat exchanger, providing cooling fluid to the heat exchanger (see solid boxed portion of annotated Fig. 1 below). M teaches a second leg leading from the heat exchanger to the fuel cell providing cooling fluid to the fuel cell (see dotted boxed portion of annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
223
429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
M teaches the pump is in the second leg of the cooling loop.
M does not teach a specific location for the pump in the cooling loop outside of the drawings, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to place the pump in the first leg of the cooling loop because doing so would amount to no more than electing one of two positions for the pump in the cooling loop. This is further shown to be obvious because the instant does not provide a reason for why the pump must be in the first leg of the cooling loop in a case where the cooling system is not a vapor compression loop. The specification of the instant only justifies the positioning of the pump when it is a vapor compression loop [0010].
Therefore, claim 25 is unpatentable over M, B and W.
Regarding claim 26, M teaches the coolant loop is a compression loop [0042]. A compression loop uses a cooling fluid that is a vapor in parts of the cycle. M teaches the intercooler cools the fuel cell, meaning it controls the fuel cell’s operating temperature [0042]. This means that M teaches the cooling fluid comprises a vapor and the coolant loop controls a fuel cell operating temperature, rendering claim 26 unpatentable over M, B, and W.
Regarding claim 29, M teaches the compressor compresses the air to at least two times ambient pressure ([0038], the inlet air into the system is at 7.6 kPa, which is the ambient pressure, the air exiting the compressor is 0.2 MPa which is at least two times the ambient pressure).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220009379-A1, (M), US-20250058884-A1, (B), US-20030127618-A1, (W), and in further view of US-20120315559-A1, (N).
Regarding claim 23, the teachings of M, B and W are explained in the rejection of claim 21.
B is silent to the specifics of the controller.
N teaches a variable area orifice (43) which controls the flow of hydrogen. N teaches the area of this orifice is set by a PID controller [0101] which controls the pressure (explicitly taught in [0101]) and speed (The speed of a gas flowing in a duct increases or decreases with the size of the duct, as long as the volumetric flow is the same. This means that the speed is controlled by the area of the orifice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to utilize a PID controller like that of N to control the cross-sectional area of the throttling device of W. It would have been obvious to do because no specific controller is provided by W and N teaches a specific type of controller that is used for controlling variable area orifices for directing gas flow.
This modification would therefore mean that the controller controls the distance between the curved plates to implement proportional, integral, and derivative control over the velocity of incoming airflow and a pressure of the pressurized exhaust, rendering claim 23 unpatentable over M, B, W, and N.
Claims 27 and 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220009379-A1, (M), US-20250058884-A1, (B), US-20030127618-A1, (W), and in further view of US-20030186097-A1, (D).
Regarding claim 27, M and B do not teach a humidifier for the air input of the fuel cell stack.
D teaches a humidifier (36, ERD) which uses humid exhaust from a fuel cell (12) to humidify process air [0026]. D teaches doing so helps maintain water balance in the system [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to place a humidification device like that of D in the fuel cell system of M, B, and W in order to maintain the water balance of the system. M, B, W, nor D provide any reason for why this cannot be done and doing so would amount to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 28, D teaches the humidifier uses a gas transfer barrier (46) which is preferably a fine pore enthalpy exchange barrier [0035]. This gas transfer barrier is sufficiently similar to a membrane, so D teaches a membrane humidifier.
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 LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights