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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 7/9/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Son ‘913 fails to disclose a first or second reservoir. This is not found persuasive because Group II does not recite a first or second reservoir; these features are therefore not a shared technical to both groups. Further, Son anticipates at least claim 1 shown below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 8 is 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.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p) II. Claim 8 recites “the gas-liquid separator removing air bubbles from the condensate to be supplied to the sensor unit” which is considered a process limitation. The limitation is given weight only insofar as the apparatus’s ability to perform the function.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son (US 2010/0040913 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Son discloses an apparatus comprising: a sampling reservoir 102 configured to sample condensate of exhaust gas flowing through an exhaust gas line in a fuel cell (paragraph 120); and a sensor unit 172 configured to measure an ion concentration of the condensate (paragraph 121). It should be noted that the instant claim makes no structural distinction between the first and second reservoirs and so they are considered one and the same. Paragraph 41 of the instant specification supports this interpretation.
Regarding claim 2, Son discloses that the sampling unit includes a feed path configured to guide the condensate from the reservoir to the sensor unit (see Figure 14).
Regarding claim 3, Son discloses that the reservoir 102 can separate gas from liquid (paragraph 120).
Regarding claim 4, Son discloses that the reservoir 120 is provided at a corner of an L-shaped pipe provided in the exhaust gas line (see Figure 14).
Regarding claim 6, Son discloses that a liquid level sensor configured to detect a liquid level in the reservoir; and a liquid level control unit configured to control a liquid level of the condensate collected in the reservoir based on an output signal from the liquid level sensor (paragraph 84).
Regarding claim 7, Son discloses that when the liquid level control unit determines that the liquid level of the condensate collected in the reservoir is excessive, the liquid level control unit drains the condensate from the reservoir (paragraph 86).
Regarding claims 8-10, Son discloses a gas-liquid separator between the exhaust gas line and the sensor unit with the ability to discharge gas from the separator and recirculate it (paragraph 120).
Regarding claim 11, Son discloses a temperature adjustment unit configured to adjust a temperature of the exhaust gas or the condensate flowing between the exhaust gas line and the sensor unit (paragraph 71). Son discloses a pump and blower for recirculation (paragraph 114).
Regarding claim 12, Son discloses a pH meter (paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 15, Son discloses a determination unit configured to determine a condition of the fuel cell based on an analysis result by the ion analysis device (paragraph 109).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son as applied to claim 1 above.
Son does not disclose the volume of the reservoir. Size/proportion are generally not grounds for patentability, however. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to size the reservoir to that which most appropriate for the device of Son.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niangar (US 2013/0157153 A1) in view of Araki (JP 2007059265 A).
Regarding claim 1, Niangar discloses a sampling unit 150 including a reservoir 160 capable of collecting condensate from an exhaust line 158b of a fuel cell 100 (paragraph 34); and a sensor unit 176 capable of measuring species in the exhaust gas (paragraph 33). Niangar discloses an infrared sensor to measure gases but not a sensor capable of measuring ion concentration. Araki—in an invention for measuring a fuel cell exhaust—discloses measuring ion concentration because it measures a decrease in fuel cell performance and thus suppressing degradation is possible (paragraph 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to upgrade the sensor of Niangar to detect ions so that additional materials can be monitored for system degradation as suggested by Araki.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Niangar discloses that the sensor unit is element 510 in Figure 13 and can be more than one sensor (paragraph 57). Niangar discloses that the sensors 510 can then branch (Figure 12) such that each sensor can detect different gases (paragraph 51).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights