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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 6/23/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Accordingly, claims 1 and 12 overlap in scope as every limitation in claim 1 is found in claim 12.
Additionally, regarding groups 1 and 2, the Examiner has not established that those groups would create a serious search and/or examination burden. The Examiner generally alleges that "the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification" without identifying the different classes that would be required to be searched. With respect, every case involves searching multiple classes/subclasses and multiple search queries. Using this standard, nearly every patent application could be restricted. On the other hand, the MPEP specifically requires examiners to establish that "there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required." See MPEP § 808.02. In the present case, the Examiner has failed to establish any "serious" burden.
This is not found persuasive because regardless of search method, inventions having different limitations will require different search strategies, and the time to consider the relevancy of collective references would increase proportionally, as well.
MPEP § 808.02 recites that for the purposes of the initial requirement of a restriction, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown if the examiner shows by appropriate explanation either separate classification, separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined. Since the Examiner has shown a different classification for the groups of claims, a burden for examining all groups has been shown.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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:
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Frost et al. (US 2011/0207012) in view of Na (US 2011/0256470).
With respect to claim 1, Frost et al. discloses an exhaust liquid treatment assembly for a fuel cell system (FCS) 10 [Figure 1; Abstract], the FCS including a fuel cell stack 12 and an FCS exhaust pipe 28 fluidly connected to the fuel cell stack 12 and configured to expel an exhaust stream from the FCS 10, the exhaust liquid treatment assembly comprising: a liquid tank 36 having a liquid inlet in fluid communication with the FCS exhaust pipe 28 and a liquid outlet; [0015-0030; Figure 1]
a liquid treatment filter separating the liquid inlet from the liquid outlet, wherein the liquid treatment filter includes a pH controlling material configured to mix with a liquid passing through the liquid treatment filter;
a liquid level sensor 38 configured to determine a level of liquid in the liquid tank 36 [0019]; and
a controller 44 in communication with the liquid level sensor 38 and configured to regulate a level of the liquid within the liquid tank 36 [0019] by selectively opening and closing an outlet valve 40 in fluid communication with the liquid outlet. [Abstract; 0019-0025]
Frost et al. does not disclose a liquid treatment filter separating the liquid inlet from the liquid outlet, wherein the liquid treatment filter includes a pH controlling material configured to mix with a liquid passing through the liquid treatment filter;
Na discloses an exhaust liquid treatment assembly for a fuel cell system FCS [Abstract] including a fuel cell stack [0009] the exhaust liquid treatment assembly comprising: a liquid tank 100 having a liquid inlet 120 in fluid communication with the FCS [0041-0050] a liquid treatment filter 101 separating the liquid inlet 120 from the liquid outlet 130, wherein the liquid treatment filter 101 includes a demineralizer (pH controlling material) configured to mix with a liquid passing through the liquid treatment filter [Figure 3; 0040-0055]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to have modified the fuel cell system of Frost et al., to have included a liquid treatment filter as disclosed in Na, in order to improve electrical safety.
With respect to claim 2, Frost et al. does not disclose wherein the liquid treatment filter is cylindrical and at least partially defines an internal cavity configured to accept liquid from the liquid inlet.
Na discloses wherein the liquid treatment filter 101 is cylindrical and at least partially defines an internal cavity configured to accept liquid from the liquid inlet 120. [Figure 3; 0040-0055]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to have modified the fuel cell system of Frost et al., to have included a liquid treatment filter as disclosed in Na, in order to improve electrical safety.
With respect to claim 3, Frost et al. does not disclose wherein the liquid treatment filter includes at least one of a first end plate or a second end plate.
Na discloses wherein the liquid treatment filter includes at least one of a first end plate 140a or a second end plate 140b. [Figure 3; 0040-0055]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to have modified the fuel cell system of Frost et al., to have included a liquid treatment filter as disclosed in Na, in order to improve electrical safety.
With respect to claim 4, Frost et al. does not disclose wherein the second end plate is spaced from a perimeter wall of the liquid tank.
Na discloses wherein the second end plate is spaced from a perimeter wall of the liquid tank. [Figure 3; 0040-0055]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to have modified the fuel cell system of Frost et al., to have included a liquid treatment filter as disclosed in Na, in order to improve electrical safety.
With respect to claim 5, Frost et al. does not disclose wherein the first end plate is spaced from a perimeter wall of the liquid tank.
Na discloses wherein the first end plate is spaced from a perimeter wall of the liquid tank. [Figure 3; 0040-0055]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to have modified the fuel cell system of Frost et al., to have included a liquid treatment filter as disclosed in Na, in order to improve electrical safety.
With respect to claim 8, Frost et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to estimate a volume of liquid within the liquid tank based on a hydrogen gas consumption and an accumulated mass intake air flow for the FCS. [0017-0026]
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Frost et al. (US 2011/0207012) in view of Na (US 2011/0256470) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Koyama et al. (US 2020/0044264).
With respect to claim 6, Frost et al. discloses wherein the liquid tank includes a pressure relief valve configured to release liquid from the liquid tank. [0018-0024]
Frost et al. does not specifically disclose a spring-loaded pressure relief valve
Koyama et al. discloses a spring-loaded pressure relief valve configured to release liquid from the liquid tank. [Figure 1; Figure 2; 0053; Figure 3]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to have modified the fuel cell system of Frost et al., to have included a spring-loaded pressure relief valve as disclosed in Koyama, in order to maintain a desired temperature and allow for simplified maintenance.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Frost et al. (US 2011/0207012) in view of Na (US 2011/0256470) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Song et al. (US 2022/0293975).
With respect to claim 7, Frost et al. does not disclose wherein the outlet valve includes a solenoid valve.
Song et al. discloses a water storage tank for a fuel cell system wherein the outlet valve includes a solenoid valve.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to have modified the fuel cell system of Frost et al., to have included a solenoid valve as disclosed in Song, in order to maintain a desired liquid level.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Frost et al. (US 2011/0207012) in view of Na (US 2011/0256470) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Obata et al. (US 2007/0092770).
With respect to claim 9, Frost et al. does not disclose including a pH sensor configured to determine a pH level of a liquid within the liquid tank, wherein the controller is configured to regulate the pH level of the liquid within the liquid tank by controlling a disbursement of a pH controlling material based on the pH level determined by the pH sensor.
Obata et al. discloses including a pH sensor configured to determine a pH level of a liquid within the liquid tank, wherein the controller is configured to regulate the pH level of the liquid within the liquid tank by controlling a disbursement of a pH controlling material based on the pH level determined by the pH sensor. [0130-0135; 0175-0178]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to have modified the fuel cell system of Frost et al., to have included a pH sensor, as disclosed in Obata et al., in order to prevent corrosion and maintain stability.
With respect to claim 10, Frost et al. does not disclose including a pH sensor configured to determine a pH level of a liquid within the liquid tank, wherein the controller is configured to regulate the pH level of the liquid within the liquid tank by selectively activating a pump to circulate the liquid through the liquid treatment filter.
Obata et al. discloses disclose including a pH sensor configured to determine a pH level of a liquid within the liquid tank, wherein the controller is configured to regulate the pH level of the liquid within the liquid tank by selectively activating a pump to circulate the liquid.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to have modified the fuel cell system of Frost et al., to have included a pH sensor, as disclosed in Obata et al., in order to prevent corrosion and maintain stability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Balan (US 2005/0123810)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-7PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights