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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not contain a sufficient disclosure of how a control system containing control commands according to instructions on a storage medium could be implemented in practice to operate the control valves and other parts to control a hydrogen circulation system.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 11-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hinsenkamp (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0190389).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 17, Hinsenkamp discloses a fuel cell system comprising: a fuel cell unit 2, a hydrogen storage tank 8 for supplying hydrogen to a pumping device 10 that acts as a turbocharger, which supplies the hydrogen to a supply line 5 into the fuel cell, and a purging line that exhausts waste gas from the fuel cell and sends to a recirculation line 9 that is processed by the pumping device and sent back to the fuel cell unit (Paragraphs 0020, 0021, 0023, 0030 and Fig. 1).
As to claims 2, 3, 14, 15 and 19, Hinsenkamp teaches that the turbocharger device receives the hydrogen from a conduit element 12 and returns the recirculated gas at the supply line 5, and that a metering valve 13 and slide valve 15 are between the conduit element and supply line for adjust a gas pressure that is supplied to the fuel cell (Paragraphs 0020, 0026).
Regarding claims 4, 12, 13 and 18, Hinsenkamp states that an electromotor 23 assists the pumping device and sets the speed to a desired level (Paragraph 0034).
As to claim 7, Hinsenkamp discloses that the gas bearings using hydrogen gas are used for turbine 11 of the pumping device (Paragraph 0032).
Hinsenkamp teaches every limitation of claims 1-4, 7, 11-15 and 17-19 of the present invention and thus anticipates the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinsenkamp (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0190389) in view of Nitta (JP Publication 2007-263040).
The teachings of Hinsenkamp have been discussed in paragraph 5 above.
Hinsenkamp fails to disclose that a plurality of turbochargers are used in parallel.
Regarding claims 5, 16 and 20, Nitta discloses a three-stage supercharging system for an engine, comprising: an exhaust gas recirculation means for returning a portion of the exhaust gas in the engine's exhaust passage to the engine's intake passage; a high-pressure stage supercharger, a medium-pressure stage supercharger, and a low-pressure stage supercharger connected in series with respect to each other from the side closest to the engine (Paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the system of Hinsenkamp could use multiple turbochargers because Nitta teaches that this arrangement improves supercharging performance in high exhaust gas recirculation volume. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the arrangement of the turbochargers could be adjusted to be parallel to one another based on the a desired outcome pressure of the gas.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinsenkamp (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0190389) in view of Braun (DE Publication 102019212023).
The teachings of Hinsenkamp have been discussed in paragraph 5 above.
Hinsenkamp fails to disclose that the turbocharger includes a water lubricated bearing.
Braun discloses a method of operating a fuel cell system comprising at least one unit with a shaft which is rotatably supported by at least one gas bearing, which is temporarily lubricated with water (Paragraph 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the bearing of Hinsenkamp could be at least temporarily lubricated with water because Braun teaches that this makes the gas-bearing shaft as wear-free as possible.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinsenkamp (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0190389) in view of Arnold (U.S. Patent 7014418).
The teachings of Hinsenkamp have been discussed in paragraph 5 above.
Hinsenkamp fails to disclose that the turbocharger has a compressor with multiple stages.
Arnold discloses a turbocharger 10 having a multi-stage compressor 12 (Col. 2, Lines 33-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the turbocharger of Hinsenkamp could have a compressor with multiple stages because Arnold teaches that this type of turbocharger produces a smooth flow of gas and reduced transfer of thermal energy between stages.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinsenkamp (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0190389) in view of Grassmann (DE Publication 102015219553).
The teachings of Hinsenkamp have been discussed in paragraph 5 above.
Hinsenkamp fails to disclose that the turbine of the turbocharger is an aeolipile.
Grassmann discloses a turbine comprising a central container containing a liquid or gaseous operating medium, wherein the turbine is an aeolipile (Paragraph 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the turbine of the turbocharger of Hinsenkamp could be an aeolipile because Grassmann teaches that these are simple and cost-effective for use in condensing gases.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights