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 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “suction chamber 258” (paragraph [0086], page 28) and “exhaust compressor 160” (paragraph [0094], page 30). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al. (US 10,727, 508 B2) in view of Agnew et al. (US 2004/0062973 A1), and Mori et al. (US 2021/0028470 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16: Lucas disclosed a fuel cell system including a fuel cell assembly, cathode exhaust routing, turbine-assisted exhaust recovery, compressor/turbine integration, turbine bypass routing, water separation arrangements and exhaust flow management structure. (Fig. 1; col. 4, line 15-37; col. 5, line 66-67; col. 6, line 1-39). Lucas does not explicitly disclose an ejector-assisted split flow recirculation, reheaters, condensers, staged heat transfer arrangements, extractors configured to extract liquid water from the exhaust flow and a control circuitry configured to alter the second flow rate based on a flow parameter.
Agnew disclose a turbine-assisted fuel cell system including an ejector recirculation system, staged- thermal conditioning system, reheaters, condensers, and heat exchangers (paragraph [0006], [0031], [0050]- [0051]). Agnew further disclose supplying a first portion of unused oxidant to a turbine, supplying another portion of unused oxidant through another flow path, ejector-assisted recirculation arrangements and thermal conditioning arrangements (paragraph [0006], [0009], [0035]- [0037], [0044]).
Mori disclose an operational-condition-responsive control system, a pressure-responsive flow regulation, pressure sensors, and regulating bypass flow responsive to operational conditions (paragraph [0031]- [0033], [0041], [0044]). Mori further disclose improving turbine power-recovery efficiency while maintaining the pressure-adjustment functionality through the responsive operational control.
Lucas, Agnew and Mori are analogous prior art because all references are directed to fuel cell exhaust management system and improving fuel cell operational efficiency.
Before the effective filling date of the current invention, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Lucas’ turbine assisted exhaust management structure with the staged thermal management of Agnew and the operational condition responsive control of Mori because improving the thermal efficiency, heat recovery and regulation fuel cell operating conditions based on operational parameter help the pressure regulation and the overall fuel cell efficiency. (Agnew [0006], [0040], [000044], [0047]; Mori [0005], [0006], [0038], [0042])
Regarding Claims 19 and 20: Lucas disclose operating a fuel cell system including supplying oxidant to a fuel cell assembly, exhausting cathode exhaust flow, routing exhaust flow through a turbine, routing portions of exhaust flow through bypass passages and regulating exhaust flow conditions within a turbine-assisted fuel cell structure (col. 4 line 38-59). Lucas does not disclose receiving turbine exhaust at a first inlet pf an ejector and second flow at the second inlet of the ejector, causing the flow device to alter a flow rate of the second flow based on a flow parameter and transferring heat by a condenser from the exhaust flow to the turbine exhaust.
Agnew disclose an operating a turbine assisted fuel cell system including supplying a first portion of unused oxidant to a turbine, supplying another portion of unused oxidant through another flow path, ejector-assisted recirculation arrangements and thermal conditioning arrangements (paragraph [0006], [0009], [0035]- [0037], [0044]).
Mori disclose a regulating fuel cell exhaust flow including sensing pressure conditions, receiving operational parameters, adjusting the bypass-valve, regulating the flow conditions responsive to the pressure conditions and maintaining the pressure-adjustment functionality (paragraph [0031]- [0033], [0037]- [0039], [0041]- [0042])
Before the effective filling date of the current invention, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the operational fuel cell of Lucas to include an ejector-assisted split-flow recirculation of Agnew together with the parameter-responsive operational control of Mori because improving varying- parameter capability an using a split flow recirculation management would improve the turbine power recovery efficiency. Accordingly, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious the operational method of Lucas to include ejector split flow recirculation and parameter responsive of the second flow as taught by Agnew and Mori. (Agnew: [0042]- [0048]; Mori: [0005]- [0006]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al. (US 10,727,508) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (US 2021/0028470).
Regarding Claim 2 and 3: Lucas disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lucas disclose Lucas does not disclose a sensor configured to sense a flow parameter or communicating the sensed flow parameter to a control circuitry.
Mori teaches sensing pressure conditions, receiving operational parameters, adjusting the bypass-valve, regulating the flow conditions responsive to the pressure conditions and maintaining the pressure-adjustment functionality (paragraph [0031]- [0033], [0037]- [0039], [0041]- [0042]).
Lucas and Mori are analogous prior art because both references are directed to fuel cell exhaust management and pressure regulation systems.
Before the effective filling date of the current invention, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the sensor-based operational control of Mori into the turbine-assisted exhaust management structure of Lucas because sensing operational parameters and adjusting bypass flow responsive to those parameters help to improve the turbine power recovery efficiency. (Mori [0005], [0031], [0038], [0041]). Accordingly, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to provide the system of Lucas with sensor-based parameter communication and flow regulation as taught by Mori.
Regarding Claim 4: Lucas disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lucas disclose regulating bypass flow using the turbine bypass (col. 4, line 26-49). Lucas does not disclose altering the differential pressure between the turbine inlet and outlet to alteration of the second flow rate by the ejector or regulating the bypass flow responsive to sensed pressure conditions.
Mori teaches a pressure operating parameter responsive control and regulation bypass flow in response to pressure conditions (paragraph [0007], [0031], [0033], [0040]). Mori specifically teaches sensing pressure condition using a pressure sensor and receiving the parameter using a controller.
Lucas and Mori are analogous prior art because both references are directed to fuel cell exhaust management and pressure regulation systems.
Before the effective filling date of the current invention, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Mori’s pressure-responsive operational control into Lucas’ turbine bypass structure because Mori expressly teach that regulating the bypass flow and the valve openings, improve the turbine power recovery efficiency and maintain the desired pressure. Accordingly, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to regulate the pressure differential between the turbine inlet and outlet responsive to the bypass flow adjustment. (paragraph [0041]- [0043])
Claims 5-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al. (US 10,727,508) in view of Agnew et al. (US 2004/0062973 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: Lucas disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lucas further disclose routing the bypass flow around the turbine using bypass passage and regulating the bypass flow using turbine bypass valve (col. 3, line 43-54). Lucas does not disclose routing different exhaust flow portions through a separate operational flow path.
Agnew teaches a turbines-assisted fuel cell structure including supplying a first portion of unused oxidant to the turbine and supplying another portion of unused oxidant through another operational path (paragraph [0006], [0037])
Lucas and Agnew are analogous prior art because both references are directed to turbine-assisted fuel cell exhaust management systems.
Before the effective filling date of the current invention, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the split-flow routing teachings of Agnew into the turbine bypass structure of Lucas because Agnew teaches that routing different oxidant-flow portions through different operational paths helps to improve varying-parameter capability and exhaust flow utilization. (Agnew [0037])
Regarding Claim 6: Lucas disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lucas further disclose routing the exhaust flow through the turbine, routing bypass flow through the turbine bypass passage and adjusting exhaust flow condition during operation (col. 4, line 4-37). Lucas does not disclose altering the flow rate of the exhaust flow when altering the flow rate of the second flow.
Agnew teaches altering operational exhaust flow conditions by changing the distribution of the flow portions (paragraph [0037]).
Lucas and Agnew are analogous prior art because both references are directed to turbine-assisted fuel cell exhaust management systems.
Before the effective filling date of the current invention, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the turbine-assisted exhaust management structure of Lucas to alter the flow rate of the exhaust flow when altering the flow rate of the second flow because Agnew teaches that routing different oxidant flow portion through a different operational flow paths affects the overall exhaust flow conditions and operational flexibility (Agnew [0037]). Accordingly, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine the split flow routing with the bypass flow regulation would predictably result in altering the exhaust flow rate in response to altering the second flow rate.
Regarding Claims 7, 8 and 10: Lucas disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lucas does not disclose a condenser configured to transfer heat from exhaust flow to turbine exhaust, an intercooler configured to transfer heat from the exhaust flow to the condenser receiving the exhaust flow and/or a reheater configured to transfer heat from the exhaust flow to dehumidifies the exhaust flow.
Agnew teaches a turbine-assisted fuel cell system that include staged thermal conditioning arrangements, heat exchangers, reheaters, intercoolers and transferring heat between exhaust streams and oxidant streams (paragraph [0042]- [0048]).
Lucas and Agnew are analogous prior art because both references are directed to turbine-assisted fuel cell exhaust management systems and thermal-conditioning system.
Before the effective filling date of the current invention, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the staged thermal conditioning teaching of Agnew into the turbine assisted exhaust management structure of Lucas because Agnew teaches that transferring heat between exhaust streams using staged heat transfer arrangements help to improve thermal efficiency, turbomachinery efficiency and reliability. (paragraph [0042]- [0048]).
Regarding Claim 9: Lucas disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lucas disclose a water separator, separating the moisture from the exhaust flow, removing condensed liquid water from the exhaust flow and providing dehumidifies exhaust flow after moisture separation (col. 5, line 66-67; col. 6, line 1-6).
Before the effective filling date of the current invention, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the water separation arrangement of Lucas as an extractor configured to extract liquid water from the exhaust flow. Such modification would merely involve the predictable use of know water separation structures according to the establish function.
Regarding Claims 12 through 14: Lucas disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lucas further disclose a fuel cell system including a compressor configured to compress the inlet feed and the exhaust flow using compressor power where in the turbine is configured to provide compressor power by extracting energy from the exhaust flow (Fig. 1; col. 6, line 13-19). Lucas expressly teaches a compressor assisted airflow management using a turbine/compressor structure for regulating and supplying inlet feed to the fuel cell system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating a moto-driven compressor upstream of the shaft driven compressor was a well know and conventional technique.
Regarding Claim 15: Lucas disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lucas specifically disclose a fuel cell assembly with a compressor to supply oxidant flow to the fuel cell system, a cathode exhaust flow routed from the fuel cell system to the turbine and a turbines-assisted exhaust management structure associated with the fuel cell (col. 4, lines 20-25). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such fuel cell system inherently requires an anode side configured to receive fuel and a cathode side configured to receive oxidizing agent because such anode and cathode are fundamental and necessary for the operation of conventional fuel cells.
Regarding Claim 18: Lucas disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lucas does not disclose an intercooler configured to transfer heat from an exhaust flow to a turbine exhaust prior to heating.
Agnew teaches a turbine-assisted fuel cell system that include staged thermal conditioning arrangements, heat exchangers, reheaters, intercoolers and transferring heat between exhaust streams and oxidant streams (paragraph [0042]- [0048]).
Lucas and Agnew are analogous prior art because both references are directed to turbine-assisted fuel cell exhaust management systems and thermal-conditioning system.
Before the effective filling date of the current invention, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the staged thermal conditioning of Agnew into the exhaust management structure of Lucas because Agnew teaches that transferring heat between operational streams using staged heat transfer arrangements including intercoolers and reheaters in order to improve thermal efficiency and operational flexibility. (Agnew [0040], [0047]- [0048])
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al. (US 10727508 B2) in view of Gunther et al. (US 2006/0134482 A1).
Regarding Claims 11: Lucas disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lucas does not disclose distributing extracted liquid water to the inlet feed.
Gunther teaches a fuel cell humidification system including distributing water to inlet oxidant streams. Gunther specifically teaches supplying water to an inlet oxidant stream and conditioning inlet feed using recovered water (paragraph [0004]).
Before the effective filling date of the current invention, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to redistribute the liquid water separated by the water separator of Lucas to an inlet fee as taught by Gunther because Gunther teaches that supplying water to the inlet oxidant streams help to improve the fuel cell operational efficiency (paragraph [0004]- [0005]).
Regarding Claim 17: Lucas disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lucas does not explicitly disclose a water distribution system configured to supply extracted water flow to the inlet feed.
Gunther teaches a fuel cell humidification system including distributing water to inlet oxidant streams. Gunther specifically teaches supplying water to an inlet oxidant stream and conditioning inlet feed using recovered water (paragraph [0004]). More specifically Gunther teaches a humidifier connected to a cathode inlet supplying water to an inlet oxidant stream and injecting water into the oxidant flow path (paragraph [0004]).
Lucas and Gunther are analogous prior art because both references are directed to turbine-assisted fuel cell exhaust management systems and humidification systems.
Before the effective filling date of the current invention, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to redistribute the water separated by the separator of Lucas to an inlet fee as Gunther because Lucas teaches that separating and removing the water from the exhaust flow help to improve water management efficiency and operational performance. (Gunther [0027])
Accordingly, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to provide a water distribution system configured to supply extracted water to the inlet feed as taught by Gunther.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALY M RESTO OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)895-1575. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/NMRO/Examiner, Art Unit 1725 /NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights