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 3 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While applicant’s interpretation of the prior art structure is appreciated, the claims have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the instant speciation, the claims terminology such as what can be considered a “section” is not defined in the instant specification and the prior art may be reasonably divided into the labeled sections identified in the rejection below, a more detailed version of which is annotated here:
PNG
media_image1.png
375
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in the figure above, sections 1, 2 and 3 have been added by the Examiner, the constriction section (labeled 2 above) may reasonably include the conical opening below such that a cylindrical channel section is directly connected to an output of the constriction, the cylindrical channel section having a cross-section that is larger than a cross-section of the constriction.
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that unavoidably where the upper and lower conical sections of the throttle element come together, i.e. exactly at constriction 60 at the first dotted line in the annotated figure above, exists a cylindrical section which comprises a small cylinder which has a non-zero width and thickness which is necessary in order to allow fluid travel between the two conical sections.
Therefore, the rejection as previously applied is maintained and made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Masahiro (JP 2011003403, a copy and machine translation of which are of record).
In regard to claim 1, Masahiro teaches a water separator comprising: a flow-conducting interior (exhaust passage 34 to gas-liquid separator 35); and a water outlet (drainage passage 45) connected to the flow-conducting interior, the water outlet comprising a throttle element (figure 2 below) that is inserted in the water outlet and configured to conduct water flow into the throttle element, wherein the throttle element comprises: a first channel section comprising a conical section (discharge regulating part 46) tapering in a direction of the water flow into the first channel section; a constriction (restriction opening 60) directly connected to an output of the first channel section, the constriction comprising a cylindrical section; and a cylindrical channel section (exhaust drainage passage 45 on second side of constriction) directly connected to an output of the constriction, the cylindrical channel section having a cross-section that is larger than a cross-section of the constriction (see annotated figures 1 and 2 below, pages 3 through 6 of machine translation).
PNG
media_image2.png
380
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, the cross-section of the cylindrical channel section becomes larger in the direction of the water flow into the first channel section to an end of the throttle element (figure 2 above).
In regard to claim 3, the Examiner notes that “the throttle element is inserted in the water outlet by heat-set insertion or by injection molding” relates to a product by process limitations that does not distinguish the claims from the prior art (MPEP 2113) which may be formed in other ways and have the an indistinguishable structure.
In regard to claim 7, the throttle element comprises an outer wall having a cylinder shape (figure 2 above).
In regard to claim 14, Masahiro teaches a fuel cell system comprising: a fuel cell unit 12; a cathode supply air path 20 connected to the fuel cell unit; a cathode exhaust air path 45 connected to the fuel cell unit; and the water separator according to claim 1, wherein the water separator is arranged in the cathode exhaust air path and is configured to limit an air flow in a drainage path of the water separator (see figure 1, page 3 of translation).
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.
Claims 4-6, 8-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kang et al. (CN 106523210 cited in IDS, a machine translation of which is of record).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 8-13, Masahiro teaches the water separator according to claim 1 above but does not disclose particulars of the throttle. However, Kang et al. teach a similar water separator for a vehicle and the desirability for form a throttle with a constriction of a diameter of 1.6 mm that is formed of ethylene propylene diene rubber (i.e. a plastic – see page 7 of attached machine translation), wherein the outer wall comprises an outer circumference comprising one or more corrugations that are oriented in an axial direction of the outer wall, the outer wall comprises an outer circumference comprising one or more circumferential grooves with a knurled structure (see figure 6 below),
PNG
media_image3.png
246
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the water outlet is arranged tangentially in a spin direction of the water separator (figure 5), the water outlet is arranged radially in an outward direction and arranged at an angle (figure 3 annotated below) relative to a longitudinal axis of the water separator and further comprising a funnel-shaped region (rotational flow component 2) connecting the water outlet to the flow-conducting interior which forms a water separator which purifies the air effectively, reducing maintenance and costs (pages 5-7 of machine translation).
PNG
media_image4.png
251
492
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to include a plastic throttle shaped as shown above disposed at an angle downstream of a funnel shaped region as such is an effective arrangement for purifying and removing water from an exhaust stream as taught by Kang et al. In any event, changes to size and shape of the prior art throttle are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV) as the shape and size of the throttle materially affect the functionality.
In regard to new claim 15, Masahiro teaches the water separator according to claim 1 above and the throttle element 45 (annotated figure below):
PNG
media_image1.png
375
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Masahiro does not teach further comprising a conical end channel section directly connected to an output of the cylindrical channel section, wherein the cross-section of the conical end channel section becomes larger in the direction of the water flow into the first channel section to an end of the throttle element. However, Kang teach the ability to include multiple throttle section 2, 3, with conical and cylindrical sections as seen in the annotated figure above to achieve desired exhaust flow in multiple directions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to include a conical end channel section directly connected to an output of the cylindrical channel section, wherein the cross-section of the conical end channel section becomes larger in the direction of the water flow into the first channel section to an end of the throttle element such as by duplicating the throttle sections of Masahiro et al. in order to control the exhaust flow in multiple directions as taught by Kang as the duplication of parts is an obvious modification to the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 Part VI).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure - US Pub 2003/0190504 newly cited, teaches a similar fuel cell system with multiple constrictive throttles (figures).
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 Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights