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 5-6, 8, and 17 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the claims recite that the sized ejector is downsized by a specified factor and the mixer area ratio is increased by a specified factor. This is indefinite as in order to downsize or increase something there has to be an established original size from which it is based which is not present in any independent or preceding claim. For the purposes of examination this limitation is being interpreted as the sized ejector and the mixture area ratio are capable of changing sizes as needed.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, The claims recite that the by-pass valve allows for both the first fuel and the second fuel to flow through the by-pass valve. This is indefinite as the only substantial difference between the first fuel and the second fuel as claimed is that the first fuel goes through a sized ejector and the second fuel goes through a by-pass valve which are in a parallel configuration. In this case, any of the so-called first fuel that goes through the bypass valve is, by the currently described distinction, a second fuel, making it impossible for a first fuel as described to flow through the by-pass valve as it could not be called a first fuel to begin with. For the purposes of examination, these claims are being interpreted as the bypass valve is capable of allowing fuel to flow through it.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tatsuya et al. (JP 2001266922 A, provided by applicants IDS, a translated PDF version will be referred to and is provided in the file wrapper).
Regarding claim 1, Tatsuya teaches a fuel cell comprising a first fuel flowing through a control valve, 18, and a first ejector, 17 and a second fuel flowing through a control valve, 18, and a bypass valve, 19, wherein the first ejector and the bypass valve are in a parallel configuration (0005, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Tatsuya teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the fuel supply side pressure control unit and the bypass side pressure control unit are air type proportional pressure control valves (0041).
Regarding claim 3, Tatsuya teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the ejector comprises a primary nozzle that can have a variety of diameters which necessarily changes the nozzle area (0032). Changing the diameter also changes a size of the ejector as the nozzle is an integral part of it (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Tatsuya teaches claim 3 as described above and further teaches that the ejector mixes a recovery stream with the first fuel necessarily resulting in a mixture area ratio depending on the different flow rates and when the maximum flow rate in the ejector is reached the new fuel bypasses the ejector (0008).
Regarding claim 7, Tatsuya teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that fuel supply side pressure control unit and the bypass side pressure control unit are air type proportional pressure control valves which can be variably opened (0041).
Regarding claim 8, Tatsuya teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the bypass valve allows fuel to flow through it at a variable rate and opens when the molar flow rate of hydrogen passing through the ejector is saturated, forcing all other fuel, including fuel originally intended for the ejector, to instead flow through the bypass valve making is capable of allowing both a first and second fuel to flow through (0030).
Regarding claim 9, Tatsuya teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the size of the ejector nozzle diameter, and therefore the stoichiometry, can change depending on the operational conditions, such as for use in a vehicle when the fuel cell has a low output (0008 0009).
Regarding claim 10, Tatsuya teaches claim 9 as described above and further teaches that a predetermined supply pressure is used and pressure is measured throughout the fuel cell to monitor pressure loss making it so that the primary nozzle inlet pressure, the predetermined supply pressure, is a recognized variable for the operational conditions of the system (0006 0030).
Regarding claim 12, Tatsuya teaches operating a fuel cell comprising a first fuel flowing through a control valve, 18, and a first ejector, 17 and a second fuel flowing through a control valve, 18, and a bypass valve, 19, wherein the first ejector and the bypass valve are in a parallel configuration (0005, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Tatsuya teaches claim 12 as described above and further teaches that the fuel supply side pressure control unit and the bypass side pressure control unit are air type proportional pressure control valves (0041).
Regarding claim 14, Tatsuya teaches claim 12 as described above and further teaches that the ejector comprises a primary nozzle that can have a variety of diameters which changes the nozzle area (0032). Changing the diameter also changes a size of the ejector as the nozzle is an integral part of it (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Tatsuya teaches claim 14 as described above and further teaches that the ejector mixes a recovery stream with the first fuel necessarily resulting in a mixture area ratio depending on the different flow rates and when the maximum flow rate in the ejector is reached the new fuel bypasses the ejector (0008).
Regarding claim 16, Tatsuya teaches claim 12 as described above and further teaches that fuel supply side pressure control unit and the bypass side pressure control unit are air type proportional pressure control valves which can be variably opened (0041).
Regarding claim 17, Tatsuya teaches claim 12 as described above and further teaches that the bypass valve allows fuel to flow through it at a variable rate and opens when the molar flow rate of hydrogen passing through the ejector is saturated, forcing all other fuel, including fuel originally intended for the ejector, to instead flow through the bypass valve making is capable of allowing both a first and second fuel to flow through (0030).
Regarding claim 18, Tatsuya teaches claim 12 as described above and further teaches that the size of the ejector nozzle diameter, and therefore the stoichiometry, can change depending on the operational conditions, such as for use in a vehicle when the fuel cell has a low output (0008 0009).
Regarding claim 19, Tatsuya teaches claim 18 as described above and further teaches that a predetermined supply pressure is used and pressure is measured throughout the fuel cell to monitor pressure loss making it so that the primary nozzle inlet pressure, the predetermined supply pressure, is a recognized variable for the operational conditions of the system (0006 0030).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuya et al. (JP 2001266922 A, provided by applicants IDS and a translated PDF version is provided in the file wrapper).
Regarding claim 5, Tatsuya teaches claim 4 as described above and is silent to specifically a mixer area ratio increasing when the ejector size decreases. Tatsuya does teach, however, that when the ejector nozzle has a smaller diameter, then the ability to circulate fuel, the entrainment ratio, increases and the utilization rate of the fuel is proper (0006 0007). That is, when the diameter of the nozzle shrinks, the ratio of recirculated fuel to new fuel, the entrainment ratio, increases, which further results in an increase in the mixer area ratio as the entrainment ratio and mixer area ratio are positively correlated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to downsize the ejector while increasing the mixer area ratio as doing so means that the fuel is being properly utilized in order to prevent a density imbalance and resulting change in fuel cell life. As it has been established that the downsize and increase of the ejector size and mixer area ratio respectively is obvious, the exact specifics of a downsize of a factor of about 4 and an increase of a factor of about 2.4-3.8 are rendered obvious in view of similar proportions unless a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results is established, See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 6, Tatsuya teaches claim 4 as described above and is silent to specifically a mixer area ratio increasing when the ejector size decreases. Tatsuya does teach, however, that when the ejector nozzle has a smaller diameter, then the ability to circulate fuel, the entrainment ratio, increases and the utilization rate of the fuel is proper (0006 0007). That is, when the diameter of the nozzle shrinks, the ratio of recirculated fuel to new fuel, the entrainment ratio, increases, which further results in an increase in the mixer area ratio the entrainment ratio and mixer area ratio are positively correlated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to downsize the ejector while increasing the mixer area ratio as doing so means that the fuel is being properly utilized in order to prevent a density imbalance and resulting change in fuel cell life. As it has been established that the downsize and increase of the ejector size and mixer area ratio respectively is obvious, the exact specifics of a downsize of a factor of about 2 and an increase of a factor of about 1.4-2.8 are rendered obvious in view of similar proportions unless a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results is established, See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 11, Tatsuya teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to a size of the ejector being based specifically on a composition of the first or second fuel. Tatsuya does teach, however, that the ejector can have different sizes as required by the system stoichiometry (0013) which is dependent upon the flow rates of the first and second fuel respectively which can change depending on what the fuel cell is being used for, such as for an electric vehicle (0026). This means that if the use for the fuel cell requires a different fuel composition and corresponding flow rate, the diameter of the ejector would change as necessary. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the size of the ejector depending on the fuel being used as doing so allows for better control of a particular fuel, a known real-world example of different nozzles for different fuels for the same general purpose is the difference between a diesel and normal gas nozzle at a gas station. Further, a simple change in size/proportion does not patentably distinguish the instant claim from the prior art and it is therefore rendered obvious, See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Regarding claim 20, Tatsuya teaches claim 12 as described above but is silent to a size of the ejector being based specifically on a composition of the first or second fuel. Tatsuya does teach, however, that the ejector can have different sizes as required by the system stoichiometry (0013) which is dependent upon the flow rates of the first and second fuel respectively which can change depending on what the fuel cell is being used for, such as for an electric vehicle (0026). This means that if the use for the fuel cell requires a different fuel composition and corresponding flow rate, the diameter of the ejector would change as necessary. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the size of the ejector depending on the fuel being used as doing so allows for better control of a particular fuel, a known real-world example of different nozzles for different fuels for the same general purpose is the difference between a diesel and normal gas nozzle at a gas station. Further, a simple change in size/proportion does not patentably distinguish the instant claim from the prior art and it is therefore rendered obvious, See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights