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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy on 11/21/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Italian patent application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a plurality of fuel cell stacks" in line 2. Later, in line 6 “a plurality of fuel cell stacks” is mentioned again. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the fuel cell stacks of line 2 are the same fuel cell stacks mentioned in line 6, or if they are entirely new and different fuel cell stacks. Examiner suggests amending line 6 to recite “the [[a]] fuel cell stacks” if they are in fact the same fuel cell stacks as mentioned in line 2. Appropriate correction is required. Please review the entire claim set for correct antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the ground" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “a [[the]] ground surface”. Appropriate correction is required. Please review the entire claim set for correct antecedent basis. If applicant choses to amend the claim to recite “ground surface” then all claims should utilize “ground surface” and not “ground” terminology.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yutaka et al. (JP 03109127 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yutaka et al. discloses a motor vehicle (vehicle 50) having a pitch axis (transverse to vehicle 50), and a plurality of fuel cell stacks (fuel cell stacks 37; Fig. 4 & 6) carried by the frame (fuel cell stacks 37 are housed in f/c and shown carried by the vehicle frame in Fig. 1) in respective fixed positions relative to the frame (portions 2; Figs. 1, 4-6), wherein each of the fuel cell stacks comprises an outer casing (see the outer housing portions of fuel cell f/c) and a plurality of fuel cells arranged in series within the outer casing, characterized in that the fuel cell stacks are aligned along a rectilinear direction belonging to a plane orthogonal to the pitch axis (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Yutaka et al. discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 1. Yutaka further discloses having a roll axis (corresponds to the longitudinal axis of vehicle 50; Fig. 4), wherein the rectilinear direction is inclined with respect to the roll axis and forms with the roll axis an acute angle extending towards a rear of the motor vehicle (Figs. 1 & 4).
Regarding claim 3, Yutaka et al. discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 1. Yutaka et al. further discloses wherein the frame comprises a bottom adapted to face the ground, and wherein the fuel cell stacks rest on a portion of the bottom (Fig. 1 shows the bottom facing the ground).
Regarding claim 9, Yutaka et al. discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising at least one electric motor (motor 4) coupled to one or more of the fuel cell stacks (fuel cell stacks 37; bottom of Pg. 1 through top of Pg. 2) in a manner to be powered by the one or more of the fuel cell stacks to deliver mechanical power suitable for driving the motor vehicle (top of Pg. 1), at least one wheel arranged to contact the ground (wheels are disclosed on Pg. 3; Fig. 1), and a transmission means to transmit the mechanical power delivered by the electric motor to the wheel (power generation is disclosed on the bottom of Pg. 1 through Pg. 2; Fig. 3).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka et al. in view of Matsumoto (US 2013/0168167 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yutaka et al. discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 3. Yutaka et al., differs from the invention as claimed because Yutaka et al. does not disclose wherein the portion of the bottom on which the fuel cell stacks rest is a rear end portion of the bottom, the rear end portion being inclined relative to an intermediate portion of the bottom according to an advancement direction of the motor vehicle so as to form an upward ramp from the intermediate portion towards a rear of the motor vehicle.
Matsumoto, however, teaches a fuel cell vehicle, wherein the portion of the bottom on which the fuel cell stacks (fuel cell 12) rest is a rear end portion of the bottom, the rear end portion being inclined relative to an intermediate portion of the bottom according to an advancement direction of the motor vehicle so as to form an upward ramp from the intermediate portion towards a rear of the motor vehicle (Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included wherein the portion of the bottom on which the fuel cell stacks rest is a rear end portion of the bottom, the rear end portion being inclined relative to an intermediate portion of the bottom according to an advancement direction of the motor vehicle so as to form an upward ramp from the intermediate portion towards a rear of the motor vehicle as taught by Matsumoto on the invention of Yutaka et al. The purpose for making the modification would have been to increase the vehicle compartment space of the fuel cell vehicle (Para. 0014).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka et al. in view of Cramer et al. (US 2003/0230443 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Yutaka et al. discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 9. Yutaka et al. differs from the invention as claimed because Yutaka et al. does not disclose wherein the electric motor is integrated with the wheel via the transmission means.
Cramer et al., however, teaches wherein the electric motor is integrated with the wheel via the transmission means (Para. 0246).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included wherein the electric motor is integrated with the wheel via the transmission means as taught by Cramer et al. on the invention of Yutaka et al. for the purpose of creating a modular design allowing a user to customize their vehicle to their specific needs (ie. an integrated wheel motor and brakes or a wheel/brake system only; Para. 0246).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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. Regarding claim 5, in addition to the previously cited art, US 9,083,025 B2 to Thomas is relevant to the invention as claimed. Thomas discloses fuel cell stacks, wherein the fuel cell stacks comprise a first stack and a second stack having respectively a first and a second outer casing (Col. 2, Lns. 45-49).
Thomas differs from the invention as claimed because Thomas doesn’t explicitly disclose a first and a second inlet duct configured respectively to supply a fluid to at least one of the fuel cells of the first stack and to at least one of the fuel cells of the second stack, a first and a second exhaust duct configured respectively to discharge said fluid from the at least one of the fuel cells of the first stack and from the at least one of the fuel cells of the second stack, the motor vehicle further comprising an end plate arranged between the first and second outer casings according to said rectilinear direction (K, B) and having at least one first port, wherein at least one of a). a first pair of ducts defined by the first and second inlet ducts, and b) a second pair of ducts defined by the first and second exhaust ducts shares the first port and a first common end. Examiner has done a comprehensive prior art search and has not uncovered any references that teach the limitations. Hunting for specific references that teach each additional limitation would amount to piecemealing references together and examiner would have to employ hindsight reasoning to build and reconstruct applicant’s invention as claimed in claim 5.
Claims 6-8 depend from claim 5.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and cited on PTO Form 892 is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY LYNN JOHNS whose telephone number is (313) 446-4852. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-5:30.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303 297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L JOHNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613