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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/18/2023, 3/26/2025, 6/03/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 contains the limitation “wherein the desired temperature is calculated in advance, wherein the composition of the anode gas is considered”. It is unclear if the composition of the anode gas is considered in the temperature calculation or in an additional step. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is rejected at least by virtue of its dependence on claim 3.
Claim 5 contains the limitation “wherein it is preferably checked whether falling below the desired temperature can be attributed to at least one other factor influencing the temperature of the anode gas in the inlet area (7) of the anode (2)” (emphasis added). It is unclear if the limitations following the term “preferably” are required or not . For purposes of examination all limitations following the term “preferably” are treated as optional (See MPEP 2173.05(h) and MPEP 2173.05(d)).
Claim 6 contains the limitation “wherein preferably the current actual temperature of the anode gas in the inlet area (7) of the anode (2) is measured and compared to the actual temperature before opening the drain valve (6)” (emphasis added). It is unclear if the limitations following the term “preferably” are required or not . For purposes of examination all limitations following the term “preferably” are treated as optional (See MPEP 2173.05(h) and MPEP 2173.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morita et al. (US 20180301721 A1) hereinafter “Morita”
Regarding claim 8, Morita discloses a control unit for operating a fuel cell system that includes a fuel cell stack ([0047]), wherein an anode gas containing fresh and recirculated hydrogen is fed to an anode in the fuel cell stack via an anode circuit ([0081]; [0083]; Fig. 7 element 12), and liquid water contained in the anode gas is separated by means of a water separator integrated into the anode circuit, is collected in a container, and is removed from the system by intermittently opening a drain valve ([0083]-[0085]; Fig. 7 element 11 and 4; [0076]), the method comprising: comparing, an actual temperature of the anode gas in the inlet area of the anode in the fuel cell stack to a desired temperature ([0085]; [0067]-[0070]; Fig. 7 element 10; [0055]), and, when the actual temperature is lower than the desired temperature, opening the drain valve ([0081]-[0085]; [0067]-[0070]; [0027]; [0031]; [0039]).
The limitation “wherein the control unit is configured to: compare an actual temperature of the anode gas in the inlet area of the anode in the fuel cell stack to a desired temperature, and, when the actual temperature is lower than the desired temperature, open the drain valve” is functional language. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Morita discloses a controller that compares a temperature of a hydrogen gas supply route (corresponding to anode gas) to a predetermined temperature and operates a discharge valve in response ([0067]-[0070]). Therefore the controller disclosed by Morita is capable of performing the recited function of “compare an actual temperature of the anode gas in the inlet area of the anode in the fuel cell stack to a desired temperature, and, when the actual temperature is lower than the desired temperature, open the drain valve”.
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) 1-2, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (JP 2009151999 A) hereinafter "Nishimura" in view of Morita et al. (US 20180301721 A1) hereinafter “Morita". Cited on the IDS filed 3/26/2025 and 08/18/2023 respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura teaches a method for operating a fuel cell system that includes a fuel cell stack ([0011]), wherein an anode gas containing fresh and recirculated hydrogen is fed to an anode in the fuel cell stack via an anode circuit ([0007]; [0016]), and liquid water contained in the anode gas is separated by means of a water separator integrated into the anode circuit ([0017]), is collected in a container ([0021]; [0042] water is stored in a retaining area), and is removed from the system by intermittently opening a drain valve ([0043] element 12; [0042]-[0044]), the method comprising: comparing, in order to detect whether the container is full, a temperature of the anode gas supply line in the fuel cell stack to a fuel cell stack temperature value ([0022]; [0045]; [0031]; [0056]), and, when the temperature difference is large, determining the container to be full and opening the drain valve ([0029]; [0031]-[0032]; [0042]).
Nishimura does not teach comparing an actual temperature of anode gas in the inlet area of the anode to a desired temperature and when the actual temperature is lower than the desired temperature opening the drain valve.
However, Morita discloses a method for operating a fuel cell system that includes a fuel cell stack ([0047]), wherein an anode gas containing fresh and recirculated hydrogen is fed to an anode in the fuel cell stack via an anode circuit ([0081]; [0083]; Fig. 7 element 12), and liquid water contained in the anode gas is separated by means of a water separator integrated into the anode circuit, is collected in a container, and is removed from the system by intermittently opening a drain valve ([0083]-[0085]; Fig. 7 element 11 and 4; [0076]), the method comprising: comparing, an actual temperature of the anode gas in the inlet area of the anode in the fuel cell stack to a desired temperature ([0085]; [0067]-[0070]), and, when the actual temperature is lower than the desired temperature, opening the drain valve ([0081]-[0085]; [0067]-[0070]; [0027]; [0031]; [0039]). Morita teaches that when the temperature of the anode gas in the inlet area of the anode in the fuel cell stack drops below a desired temperature freezing damage may occur due to volume expansion of a condensate ([0029]; [0079]; [0071]; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Nishimura to compare an actual temperature of anode gas in the inlet area of the anode to a desired temperature and when the actual temperature is lower than the desired temperature open the drain valve as taught by Morita.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to compare an actual temperature of anode gas in the inlet area of the anode to a desired temperature and when the actual temperature is lower than the desired temperature open the drain valve as taught by Morita to prevent freezing damage ([0029]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Nishimura teaches the method according to claim 1. Modified Nishimura further teaches wherein the actual temperature of the anode gas in the inlet area of the anode in the fuel cell stack is measured using a temperature sensor (Nishimura [0031], [0027] element 15; Morita [0086], [0040], [0068], [0055]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nishimura teaches the method according to claim 1. Modified Nishimura teaches initiating measures for moisture control (Nishimura [0031]-[0032]; Morita [0070]).
Modified Nishimura does not explicitly teach wherein the actual temperature is used to infer the relative humidity of the anode gas in the inlet area of the anode.
However, Nishimura teaches that exhaust gas circulated under high humidity and relatively high temperatures and newly supplied fuel gas at relatively low temperature are mixed and supplied to the anode inlet ([0031]). Nishimura teaches that water in the exhaust fuel gas condenses when it is cooled during mixing with the newly supplied fuel gas and the amount of condensed water depends on the temperature difference between the exhaust fuel gas and the supplied fuel gas ([0031]).
Morita teaches measuring the actual temperature of the anode gas in the inlet area of the anode ([0067]-[0070]).
Therefore, in light of Nishimura and Morita, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably infer the relative humidity of the anode gas in the inlet area of the anode.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP 2009151999 A) in view of Morita (US 20180301721 A1), as applied above, in view of Vitaly I. Khvorostyanov et al. (“Thermodynamic Theory of Freezing and Melting of Water and Aqueous Solutions”, J. Phys. Chem. A 2004) hereinafter “Vitaly”.
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Nishimura teaches the method according to claim 1. Modified Nishimura teaches that when the temperature of the anode gas in the inlet area of the anode in the fuel cell stack drops below a desired temperature freezing damage may occur due to volume expansion of a condensate (Morita [0029], [0079], [0071], [0027]; Nishimura [0035]). Modified Nishimura teaches that exhaust gas circulated under high humidity and relatively high temperatures and newly supplied fuel gas at relatively low temperature are mixed and supplied to the anode inlet (Nishimura [0031]). Nishimura teaches that water in the exhaust fuel gas condenses when it is cooled during mixing with the newly supplied fuel gas and the amount of condensed water depends on the temperature difference between the exhaust fuel gas and the supplied fuel gas (Nishimura [0031]). Therefore, modified Nishimura teaches wherein the composition of the anode gas is considered.
Modified Nishimura does not teach wherein the desired temperature is calculated in advance, wherein, when the desired temperature is calculated, all operations are assumed to be isobaric under constant operating conditions.
However, Vitaly teaches methods of calculating freezing temperature of water and aqueous solutions under isobaric conditions (abstract; Section 3 pp 11077-11078). Vitaly teaches equations to derive critical temperature of both homogeneous and heterogenous freezing and teaches that assuming isobaric conditions simplifies the equation (Section 3 pp 11077-11078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by modified Nishimura to calculate the freezing temperature under isobaric conditions as taught by Vitaly.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the method taught by modified Nishimura to calculate the freezing temperature under isobaric conditions as taught by Vitaly with a reasonable expectation of successfully preventing damage due to volume expansion of a condensate under freezing conditions.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP 2009151999 A) in view of Morita (US 20180301721 A1), as applied above, in view of Hierl (US 20220069324 A1) hereinafter “Hierl”.
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Nishimura teaches the method according to claim 1.
Modified Nishimura does not teach wherein, prior to opening the drain valve, a plausibility test is carried out, nor wherein , after closing the drain valve, a plausibility test is carried out.
However, Heirl teaches a method for line pressure monitoring in a fuel cell system (abstract; [0005]; [0021]) where plausibility comparisons between detected pressures ([0015]). Heirl teaches that a plausibility test compares a measured or calculated value is compared to an expected value and any deviation indicated abnormal operation ([0051]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by modified Nishimura to conduct a plausibility test, for example, prior to opening the drain valve and after closing the drain valve.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the method taught by modified Nishimura to conduct a plausibility test prior to detect abnormal operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights