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.
Claims 23-24 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 23 recites “an anode compartment and a cathode compartment separated by a polymer proton exchange membrane; a hydrogen supply system comprising a hydrogen reservoir and a supply circuit connecting the hydrogen reservoir to the inlet of the anode compartment of the fuel cell, the supply circuit comprising a Venturi-type ejector; a recirculation circuit for recirculating hydrogen not consumed by the fuel cell between the outlet of the anode compartment of the fuel cell and the Venturi-type ejector of the supply circuit, the recirculation of the unconsumed hydrogen being driven by the Venturi-type ejector; a purge system comprising a valve for purging and draining the anode compartment” which are all elements recited in claim 13. The scope of the claim therefore becomes unclear. Are these second, different structural elements or are they meant to refer back to those already claimed in claim 13? Clarification is required.
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) 13, 18, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (JP 2004-281132).
With respect to claim 13, Mori et al. teaches a method for detecting a hydrogen leak in a fuel cell system, wherein the fuel cell system comprises: a stack of electrochemical cells [0018] forming a fuel cell (1) comprising an anode compartment (1a) and a cathode compartment (1b) separated by a polymer proton exchange membrane (taught in [0019]); a hydrogen supply system comprising a hydrogen reservoir (2) and a supply circuit (defined by flow path 4; [0021]) connecting the hydrogen reservoir (2) to an inlet (as seen in Fig. 3) of the anode compartment (1a) of the fuel cell (1), the supply circuit (defined by flow path 4) comprising a Venturi-type ejector (5; as Mori et al. teaches despite the word "Venturi" is not explicitly present in the passage, the physical mechanism described where pressurized hydrogen passes through a nozzle and creates a suction effect to circulate and mix with the surplus hydrogen is the exact definition of a Venturi ejector; [0021]); a recirculation circuit (6) for recirculating hydrogen not consumed by the fuel cell (1) between an outlet (seen in Fig. 3) of the anode compartment (1a) of the fuel cell (1) and the Venturi-type ejector (5) of the supply circuit (defined by flow path 4), the recirculation of the unconsumed hydrogen being driven by the Venturi-type ejector (5; [0021]); and a purge system (seen in Fig. 3) comprising a valve (8) for purging [0021] and draining the anode compartment (1a); the hydrogen leakage detection method comprising the following steps: a) calculating the total flow of hydrogen consumed by the fuel cell system (i.e. hydrogen consumption amount; [0030]); b) calculating the flow rate of hydrogen admitted by the hydrogen supply system (i.e. hydrogen supply amount via sensor 10; [0030]) into an inlet pipe (defined by 4 in Fig. 3) of the Venturi-type ejector (5); c) determining a leak rate by calculating the difference between the flow rate of admitted hydrogen and the total flow of hydrogen consumed (as described by the equation; and d) detecting a possible hydrogen leak in the fuel cell system by comparing the leak rate against at least one threshold value (as Mori et al. teaches in [0037], Then, the presence or absence of hydrogen leakage is determined based on whether or not those subtracted values exceed a threshold value); such that the method detects all of the hydrogen leaks that occur in the fuel cell system (Fig. 3) downstream of the Venturi-type ejector (5; as the limitation reads as an intended result of the taught structure, therefore, the examiner concludes the limitation is taught in the prior art Mori et al.).
With respect to claim 18, Mori et al. teaches the method wherein, during step b), the flow rate of hydrogen admitted QH2.in by the hydrogen supply system (defined by flow path 4) into the inlet pipe of the Venturi-type ejector (5) is calculated according to whether the flow regime occurring within the Venturi-type ejector (5) is a subsonic flow regime or a sonic flow regime (as Mori et al. teaches using the ejector in the hydrogen supply, thereby indirectly teaching the Venturi-type ejector 5 using a supersonic flow regime inside the primary nozzle throat to entrain the recirculated gas and a subsonic flow regime in the downstream mixing chamber and diffuser; thereby reading on the claimed invention).
With respect to claim 22, Mori et al. teaches the method wherein: the hydrogen leak detection method is carried out cyclically, in real time (as Mori et al. teaches using the method to accurately detect leakage of fuel gas; [0001]); and steps c) and d) of the hydrogen leak detection method are performed by a computer (control unit; [0024]) controlling the fuel cell system (1) at each sampling period of the computer (as during operation, the system is actively monitored for leaking fuel).
With respect to claim 23, Mori et al. teaches in Fig. 3 a fuel cell system for implementing the hydrogen leak detection method of rejected claim 13 comprising: a stack of electrochemical cells [0018] forming a fuel cell (1) comprising an anode compartment (1a) and a cathode compartment (1b) separated by a polymer proton exchange membrane (taught in [0019]); a hydrogen supply system comprising a hydrogen reservoir (2) and a supply circuit (as defined by flow path 4) connecting the hydrogen reservoir (2) to the inlet (as seen in Fig. 3) of the anode compartment (1a) of the fuel cell (1), the supply circuit (defined by flow path 4) comprising a Venturi-type ejector (5; as Mori et al. teaches despite the word "Venturi" is not explicitly present in the passage, the physical mechanism described where pressurized hydrogen passes through a nozzle and creates a suction effect to circulate and mix with the surplus hydrogen is the exact definition of a Venturi ejector; [0021]); a recirculation circuit (6) for recirculating hydrogen not consumed by the fuel cell (1) between the outlet (seen in Fig. 3) of the anode compartment (1a) of the fuel cell (1) and the Venturi-type ejector (5) of the supply circuit (defined by flow path 4), the recirculation of the unconsumed hydrogen being driven by the Venturi-type ejector (5; [0021]); a purge system (seen in Fig. 3) comprising a valve (8) for purging and draining the anode compartment (1a); and a computer (i.e. control unit; [0024]) configured for implementing (rejected) steps a) to d) of the hydrogen leak detection method (rejected in claim 13).
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(s) 14-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (JP 2004-281132).
With respect to claim 14, Mori et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 13 but remains silent regarding:
PNG
media_image1.png
278
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The need to determine flow rates is well known, as Mori et al. discloses in [0037]. In the calculation of total flow rate, the calculative process uses data related to the hydrogen consumed by the fuel cell by electrochemical reaction, hydrogen lost through the purges, and hydrogen flow rate through the taught polymer proton exchanger, which are limitations all taught by Mori et al.. The examiner has concluded the recited equation requires only a finite number of potential variables based on what is structurally taught in Mori et al..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to derive the claimed equation based on the measured variables taught in Mori et al., as there were only a finite number of predictable solutions, providing a reasonable expectation of success in deriving the equation from the prior art. MPEP 2141 III.
With respect to claim 15, Mori et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 14 but remains silent regarding:
PNG
media_image2.png
290
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The need to determine flow rates is well known in fluid dynamics and thermodynamics using the Ideal Gas Law. In the calculation of flow rate, the calculative process uses data taught by Mori et al. and the anode compartment and the cathode compartment in [0008] and Fig. 3. The examiner has concluded the recited equation requires only a finite number of potential variables based on what is structurally taught in Mori et al..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to derive the claimed equation based on the measured variables taught in Mori et al., as there were only a finite number of predictable solutions, providing a reasonable expectation of success in deriving the equation from the prior art. MPEP 2141 III.
With respect to claim 16, Mori et al. teaches wherein the pressure gradient Panode.in is obtained by a constant admission purge method consisting of deferring the re-establishment of the pressure lost in the anode compartment of the fuel cell (1) during a purge by deferring the opening of a hydrogen supply valve (3) of the supply system (as Mori et al. teaches in [0030] a diagnostic method that calculates the hydrogen leak rate in a fuel cell system based on a mass-balance calculation).
With respect to claim 17, Mori et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 14 but remains silent regarding:
PNG
media_image3.png
282
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The need to determine flow rates is well known in fluid dynamics of how fluids or gases move through a given cross-sectional area. Mori et al. teaches the polymer exchange membrane, the anode compartment and the cathode compartment in [0008] and Fig. 3. In the calculation of flow rate, the calculative process uses data taught by Mori et al.. The examiner has concluded the recited equation requires only a finite number of potential variables based on what is structurally taught in Mori et al. and the laws of fluid dynamics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to derive the claimed equation based on the measured variables taught in Mori et al., as there were only a finite number of predictable solutions, providing a reasonable expectation of success in deriving the equation from the prior art. MPEP 2141 III.
With respect to claim 19, Mori et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 14 but remains silent regarding:
PNG
media_image4.png
331
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
504
654
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The need to determine flow rates is well known in fluid dynamics of how fluids or gases move through a given cross-sectional area. Mori et al. teaches the polymer exchange membrane, the anode compartment and the cathode compartment in [0008] and Fig. 3. In the calculation of flow rate, the calculative process uses data taught by Mori et al.. The examiner has concluded the recited equation requires only a finite number of potential variables based on what is structurally taught in Mori et al. and the laws of fluid dynamics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to derive the claimed equation based on the measured variables taught in Mori et al., as there were only a finite number of predictable solutions, providing a reasonable expectation of success in deriving the equation from the prior art. MPEP 2141 III.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (JP 2004-281132) in view of Bath et al. (2020/0114098).
With respect to claim 20, Mori et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 13 but remains silent regarding the leak rate determined in step c) is filtered before comparison with the at least one threshold value.
Bath et al. teaches a similar algorithmic leak rate determination that a leak rate determined is filtered before comparison with the at least one threshold value (as Bath et al. teaches using a low pass filter on the data collected prior to comparing the result; [0204]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify method of Mori et al. to include the low pass filter such that the data used to calculate the flow rate is filter prior to comparison of the threshold, as taught by Bath et al. because such a modification ensures less noise and a more accurate leak detection result.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (JP 2004-281132) in view of Izezoe et al. (WO 2012070367A1)).
With respect to claim 24, Mori et al. teaches in Fig. 3 the fuel cell system wherein the fuel cell system of Fig. 3 further comprises a pressure sensor (9) arranged upstream of the Venturi-type ejector (5) and a pressure sensor (11) arranged downstream of the Venturi-type ejector (5).
Mori et al. remains silent regarding a temperature sensor arranged upstream of the Venturi-type ejection.
Izezoe et al. teaches similar system that includes a temperature sensor (29) arranged upstream of an ejector (22; as Izezoe et al. teaches [I]n addition, you may arrange | position so that the temperature of the hydrogen gas which distribute | circulates the ejector 22 may be measured. Specifically, for example, it can be disposed on the supply pipe 20a on the upstream side of the ejector 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system to include the temperature sensor of Izezoe et al. upstream the ejector taught in Mori et al. because such a modification allows for more accurate inlet temperature monitoring to ensure a steady electrochemical reaction environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saito (2018/0233755) which teaches fuel cell system and hydrogen leak decision method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights