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 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said two planar exterior wall portions" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests amending this limitation to --said at least two planar extension wall portions--.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (US 7,410,714; listed in the IDS filed 29 November 2023), in view of Schauer et al. (US 2020/0243882; hereinafter “Schauer”; listed in the IDS filed 29 November 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Burke teaches a cooling arrangement for a fuel cell electric vehicle, comprising:
a hydrogen tank (hydrogen tank 16, see Fig. 1; 7:55-67) comprising a metal enveloping wall (it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to utilize metal for the wall of the hydrogen tank because it is well known),
a heat exchanger (heat pipe 24, see Fig. 1; 6:2-27) comprising a metal part (it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to utilize metal for the heat pipe because it is well known) with at least one internal coolant channel (see 8:40-64) for conducting a coolant to fuel cells of the vehicle, wherein the metal part of the heat exchanger is attached to said exterior wall portion of the hydrogen tank to form a metal-to-metal contact (see Fig. 1 and 8:40-64).
Burke is silent to wherein the metal enveloping wall of the hydrogen tank has at least one planar exterior wall portion, wherein the metal part of the heat exchanger is attached to said planar exterior wall portion of the hydrogen tank to form a planar metal-to-metal contact for transferring heat from the coolant, via the metal part of the heat exchanger, to the metal enveloping wall of the hydrogen tank.
Schauer teaches a hydrogen fuel tank 10 (see [0034]-[0035]) that may be cuboid (square cross section 1.2, see Fig. 3). Schauer teaches that a fuel tank 1 with a substantially square cross section 1.2 can be better stowed and/or stacked (see [0042]).
In view of Schauer’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cooling arrangement of Burke to include wherein the metal enveloping wall of the hydrogen tank has at least one planar exterior wall portion, because a substantially square cross section can be better stowed and/or stacked. This combination of Burke and Schauer would then result in a metal heat pipe being wrapped around a metal tank with a cuboid cross section, wherein the metal part of the heat exchanger is attached to said planar exterior wall portion of the hydrogen tank to form a planar metal-to-metal contact.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., for conducting a coolant to fuel cells of the vehicle, for transferring heat from the coolant, via the metal part of the heat exchanger, to the metal enveloping wall of the hydrogen tank), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Burke and Schauer teaches wherein the hydrogen tank has a rectangular cross-section (Schauer: cross section 1.2, see Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Burke and Schauer teaches wherein the hydrogen tank is cuboid (Schauer: substantially square cross section 1.2, see [0042]).
Furthermore, absent persuasive evidence, the particular shape of the hydrogen tank would have been an obvious engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Burke and Schauer is silent to wherein the hydrogen tank is configured to be mounted to the vehicle so that said planar exterior wall portion to which the metal part of the heat exchanger is attached defines a vertical plane. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular mounting placement of the hydrogen tank to the vehicle is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Burke and Schauer is silent to wherein the hydrogen tank has an inboard side configured to face towards the central longitudinal axis of the vehicle and an outboard side configured to face away from the central longitudinal axis of the vehicle, wherein said planar exterior wall portion is located on the outboard side, wherein the attached heat exchanger forms a collision protection structure for protecting the hydrogen tank. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular mounting placement of the hydrogen tank to the vehicle is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., wherein the attached heat exchanger forms a collision protection structure for protecting the hydrogen tank), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Burke and Schauer is silent to wherein the hydrogen tank is configured to be mounted to a vehicle so that said planar exterior wall portion to which the metal part of the heat exchanger is attached defines a horizontal plane. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular mounting configuration of the hydrogen tank to the vehicle is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Burke and Schauer is silent to wherein the hydrogen tank has a lower side configured to face towards the ground on which the vehicle stands and an upper side configured to face away from the ground, wherein said planar exterior wall portion is located on the upper side. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular mounting configuration of the hydrogen tank to the vehicle is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., wherein the attached heat exchanger forms a walking platform enabling a person to stand on the heat exchanger without touching the hydrogen tank), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Burke and Schauer teaches wherein the metal enveloping wall of the heat exchanger has at least two planar exterior wall portions (Schauer: square cross section 1.2, see Fig. 3) which extend perpendicularly to each other (Schauer: any two adjacent, perpendicular walls of the square cross section 1.2, see Fig. 3), wherein the metal part of the heat exchanger has an L-shaped cross-section such that metal-to-metal contact is formed with both of said two planar exterior wall portions (Burke teaches portions of the heat pipes that are wrapped around the respective gas storage tanks are in close thermal contact with the surfaces of the tanks (see 8:40-64) and so the heat pipes of Burke being wrapped around the cuboid storage tank of Schauer would result in part of the heat exchanger having an L-shaped cross-section such that metal-to-metal contact is formed with both of said two planar exterior wall portions).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Burke and Schauer teaches wherein the hydrogen tank is cuboid (Schauer: square cross section 1.2, see Fig. 3).
The combination of Burke and Schauer is silent to wherein the heat exchanger covers all six sides of the hydrogen tank to form metal-to-metal contact on all six sides thereof. However, Burke teaches that portions of the heat pipes that are wrapped around the respective gas storage tanks are in close thermal contact with the surfaces of the tanks so that, as heat pipe fluid flows through the tubing wrapped around the tanks, heat is transferred from the heat pipe system to the surface of the gas storage tanks (see 8:40-64). Thus, in view of the teachings, of Burke and Schauer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize all six sides of the cuboid tank to maximize the heat transfer from the heat pipe system to the surface of the gas storage tanks.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Burke and Schauer teaches a fuel cell electric vehicle comprising fuel cells (Burke: fuel cell stack 12, see Fig. 1; 6:37-67) and a cooling arrangement according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above) for cooling said fuel cells.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., for cooling said fuel cells), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Burke and Schauer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 110783601 A; hereinafter “Liu”; using the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Burke and Schauer is silent to wherein the heat exchanger is provided with a plurality of fins for air cooling of the heat exchanger.
Liu teaches a heat exchanger which is provided with a plurality of fins (see [0013]). The fins are used to change the shape of the heat transfer surface, forming an extended surface, increasing the heat transfer area, and causing strong disturbance to the fluid, breaking the laminar boundary layer of the fluid, and increasing the turbulence intensity (see [0014]). This invention preheats the exhaust gas generated by the fuel cell and transfers it to a heat exchanger, which then heats the hydrogen storage tank. This solves the problem of efficient waste heat recovery from fuel cells, which helps reduce system energy consumption and improve overall energy utilization efficiency (see [0019]).
In view of Liu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cooling arrangement of the combination of Burke and Schauer to include wherein the heat exchanger is provided with a plurality of fins because it helps reduce system energy consumption and improve overall energy utilization efficiency.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., for air cooling of the heat exchanger), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Burke, Schauer, and Liu teaches wherein the fins are provided on a side of the heat exchanger which is opposite to the side that contacts the planar exterior wall portion (Schauer: see Fig. 3) of the hydrogen tank (Liu: see Fig. 1 – fins 3 on exterior side of inner sleeve 2 that has its interior side contacting the exterior wall portion of the hydrogen tank 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 27 May 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights