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 of Group I, drawn to a fuel cell system in the reply filed on July 22nd, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on July 22nd, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, drawn to a method of operating a fuel cell system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 22nd, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the instant claim recites “wherein the operating pressure is at or above the critical current density.” However, the units of pressure are different from current density, and therefore cannot be directly compared. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner how the operating pressure is established in a numerical relationship compared to current density. For the purposes of Examiner, the operating pressure is understood to be equal to or greater than the pressure at a critical current density. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2-12, they are further rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
Further regarding claims 2-12, the preamble appears to be reciting “the system”, however, refers to claim 1 whose preamble recites “a fuel cell system”. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the system in the preamble of the dependent claims. Applicant is advised to clarify such that the preamble of the dependent claims align with the preamble of the independent claim.
Further regarding claim 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the relationship,” “the gas constant of the first fuel,” and “the gas constant of the second fuel.” Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the ejector size.” Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 3, the instant claim recites “the ejector size depends on a pressure loss through the gas recirculation loop, wherein the pressure loss varies with operating conditions.” It is unclear to the examiner, if the pressure loss varies with operating conditions of the fuel cell system, how the ejector may be sized depending on pressure loss. It is unclear if the ejector size is fixed and set before operation, or if the size of the ejector may be adjusted during operation. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner has interpreted the instant limitation to mean that some portion of the ejector is adjustable to adjust the size of the ejector during operation of the fuel cell system. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 3, the instant claim recites “the ejector size depends on a pressure loss…” It is unclear to the Examiner how the ejector size depends on the pressure loss, i.e., how the pressure loss through the anode gas recirculation loop is taken into consideration when sizing the ejector. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner has interpreted the instant claimed limitations to be met so long as the ejector is operational, it meets the claimed limitation because the ejector would be sized to operate in the fuel cell system. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 6, the instant claim recites “the ejector is sized based on a sizing temperature of the first fuel at the first inlet” It is unclear to the Examiner how the ejector size is based on the temperature of the first fuel at the first inlet, i.e., how the temperature of the first fuel at the first inlet is taken into consideration when sizing the ejector. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner has interpreted the instant claimed limitations to be met so long as the ejector is operational, it meets the claimed limitation because the ejector would be sized to operate in the fuel cell system. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the temperature of the first fuel.” Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claims 6 and 7, the instant claim recites “the ejector is sized based on a sizing temperature of the first fuel at the first inlet…the sizing temperature can vary with operating conditions of the system.” It is unclear to the examiner, if the sizing temperature varies with operating conditions of the fuel cell system, how the ejector may be sized depending on sizing temperature. It is unclear if the ejector size is fixed and set before operation, or if the size of the ejector may be adjusted during operation. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner has interpreted the instant limitation to mean that some portion of the ejector is adjustable to adjust the size of the ejector during operation of the fuel cell system. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the target entrainment ratio.” Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 10, the instant claim recites “the ejector is sized to meet the target entrainment ratio…the target entrainment ratio is based on a minimum excess fuel ratio or a minimum anode gas inlet humidity.” It is unclear to the Examiner how the target entrainment ratio is based on a minimum excess fuel ratio or a minimum anode gas inlet humidity, i.e., how the minimum excess fuel ratio or a minimum anode gas inlet humidity is taken into consideration when setting the target entrainment ratio and further how the entrainment ratio is considered when sizing the ejector. For purposes of Examination, the instant limitation has been interpreted by the Examiner to be met so long as the ejector is operational, it meets the claimed limitation because the ejector would be sized to operate in the fuel cell system. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claims 1 and 12, the instant claim recites “the effective efficiency varies with operating conditions of the ejector.” It is unclear to the examiner, if the effective efficiency varies with operating conditions of the fuel cell system, how the ejector may be sized depending on the effective efficiency. It is unclear if the ejector size is fixed and set before operation, or if the size of the ejector may be adjusted during operation. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner has interpreted the instant limitation to mean that some portion of the ejector is adjustable to adjust the size of the ejector during operation of the fuel cell system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Chikugo (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190074526 A1) as evidenced by Zhu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220223893 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Chikugo (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190074526 A1) in view of Zhu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220223893 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chikugo teaches a fuel cell system (Paragraph 0001) comprising an ejector (Paragraph 0007).
The following limitations are use limitations and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product:
An ejector “with a first fuel entering a first inlet at a first pressure (Po), a second fuel entering a second inlet at a second pressure (Ps), and the first fuel and second fuel exiting an ejector exit at an ejector exit pressure (Pc),
wherein the ejector is sized to fully deliver the second fuel for a required entrainment ratio (ER) at a critical current density,
wherein the fuel cell system is required to operate at an operating current density and at an operating pressure within an operating pressure range,
wherein the operating pressure is at or above the critical current density, and wherein the ejector has an effective efficiency (η)”
The use of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Chikugo teaches a load device in the fuel cell system that is connected to the fuel cell stack and a control unit of the load device which outputs a required load to the fuel cell stack to the controlled. Chikugo teaches the required load referred to a parameter that is correlated with a power generation amount of the fuel cell stack and may be, for example, a target current of the fuel cell stack that is necessary for supplying the required electric power to the load device (Paragraphs 0072-0073). Therefore, Chikugo clearly teaches in the disclosure the ability to manipulate the current (and thus current density) of the fuel cell system. Thus, the Examiner considers the fuel cel system of Chikugo capable of operating at an operating current density, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
The Examiner presents that the structural limitations of “an ejector with a first fuel entering a first inlet at a first pressure (Po), a second fuel entering a second inlet at a second pressure (Ps), and the first fuel and second fuel exiting an ejector exit at an ejector exit pressure (Pc)” required by the claim are an ejector with a first inlet, second inlet, and an exit. Chikugo teaches the ejector merges an anode discharged gas with an anode supply gas through inlet ports in order to supply the merged gas to the fuel cell stack through an outlet port (Paragraph 0051-0052).
Further, Chikugo teaches an anode pressure control valve (Figure 1, Element 33) installed on the anode gas supply passage upstream of the ejector in order to adjust the pressure of the anode gas supplied to the rejector via a controller which adjusts valve opening degree (Paragraph 0050). Additionally, Chikugo teaches an anode recirculation pump (Figure 1, Element 36) which introduces anode discharged gas from the fuel cell stack into the anode gas supply passage. Chikugo teaches the pump to increase the pressure of the anode discharged gas for delivery to the rejector (Paragraphs 0054-0056).
The ordinary artisan would recognize that the fuel entering the first inlet and the second inlet of the ejector of Chikugo and the first and second fuel exiting the ejector of Chikugo would have some pressure, Po, Ps, and Pc, respectively, in accordance with the claimed limitations. Further, as described above, Chikugo teaches the adjustment of the pressure of the entering first fuel stream and second fuel stream into the ejector by a controller, and therefore, the fuel cell system of Chikugo is capable of operating at an operating pressure within an operating pressure range, that is at or above the critical current density, or it would have been obvious to adjust the pressure during operation to within this range by the controller of Chikugo, further meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Additionally, Zhu discloses an anode recirculation system with an ejector for a solid oxide fuel cell (Paragraph 0001). Zhu teaches the entrainment ratio as the index to evaluate performance of the ejector, which is a ratio of the mass flow rate of the entering streams to the ejector, the mass flow rates being related to temperature and pressure of these streams (Paragraphs 0003-0005).
Thus, when considering the teachings of Zhu which establish the relationship between entrainment ratio and variables of the inlet stream such as pressure, the ordinary artisan would recognize that because Chikugo (as discussed above) teaches the ability to adjust the pressure of the entering streams (including the second fuel) to the ejector, the entrainment ratio of the ejector (and thus is overall performance) can effectively be adjusted, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to modify Chikugo to incorporate the teachings of Zhu in which the temperature and pressure of the ejector inlet streams may be modified to adjust the entrainment ratio and therefore the efficiency of the ejector. Therefore, the ejector of Chikugo is considered to have some size and is capable of fully delivering the second fuel for a required entrainment ratio (ER) at a critical current density, meeting the instant claimed limitations. Additionally, the ejector of Chikugo is considered to have an effective efficiency, further meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed use because Chikugo teaches a fuel cell system comprising an ejector which receives inlet streams whose pressure may be adjusted by valves and controllers. Since Chikugo teaches the structure as disclosed by the Applicant, it would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Chikugo teaches the system of claim 1.
As discussed above, the limitation of the independent claim directed to the operating pressure of the fuel cell system was considered a recitation of the intended use of the product and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product.
Thus, the instant claimed limitations of “operating pressure range ranges from a low pressure to a high pressure, wherein the operating pressure of the fuel cell system at the operating current density is set to be below the ejector exit pressure (Pc) that satisfies the relationship (Pc/Po)κ < Ps/Pc, and wherein κ = (R_A/R_B) (η/ER), RA is the gas constant of the first fuel and RB is the gas constant of the second fuel” are also considered use limitations not determining the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. See MPEP 2113.
Also discussed above was how the prior art of Chikugo discloses the ability to adjust the pressure of the entering fuel streams into the ejector, and therefore the ability to control the operating pressure range of the fuel cell system. Therefore, the fuel cell system of Chikugo is considered capable of operating at an operating pressure range ranges from a low pressure to a high pressure, wherein the operating pressure of the fuel cell system at the operating current density is set to be below the ejector exit pressure (Pc) that satisfies the relationship (Pc/Po)κ < Ps/Pc, and wherein κ = (R_A/R_B) (η/ER), RA is the gas constant of the first fuel and RB is the gas constant of the second fuel, in accordance with the instant claimed limitations. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to adjust the pressure of the first fuel into the first inlet of the ejector and or the pressure of the second fuel into the second inlet of the ejector in order to control the entrainment ratio, and therefore improve the efficiency, of the ejector, as recognized by Chikugo in view of Zhu as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Chikugo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the fuel cell system comprises an anode gas recirculation loop (anode gas circulation passage) (Paragraph 0054).
In the fuel cell system of Chikugo, the pressure loss through the ejector is taken into taken into consideration in order to adjust the output of the anode circulation pump, including the pressure of the gas in the recirculation loop (Paragraphs 0090-0095). Therefore, the ejector of Chikugo has some size that permits its operation (and further accounts for pressure loss, as described above), which is considered to meet the instant claimed limitation of the ejector size depending on a pressure loss (ΔPLIFT) through the anode gas recirculation loop (see 112b interpretation above).
The instant claimed limitations of “the ejector size depends on a pressure loss (ΔPLIFT)…wherein the pressure loss (ΔPLIFT) varies with operating conditions including the operating current density and operating pressure, wherein (Pc/Po)κ < 1- ΔPLIFT/Pc, and wherein κ = (R_A/R_B) (η/ER), RA is the gas constant of the first fuel and RB is the gas constant of the second fuel” are considered use limitations not determining the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. See MPEP 2113.
As discussed above, the prior art of Chikugo discloses the ability to adjust the pressure of the entering fuel streams into the ejector and the ability to manipulate the current density of the fuel cell system, and therefore the ability to control the operating pressure range and operating current density of the fuel cell system. Therefore, the fuel cell system of Chikugo is considered capable of considering the pressure loss (ΔPLIFT) varies with operating conditions including the operating current density and operating pressure, wherein (Pc/Po)κ < 1- ΔPLIFT/Pc, and wherein κ = (R_A/R_B) (η/ER), RA is the gas constant of the first fuel and RB is the gas constant of the second fuel when sizing the ejector, in accordance with the instant claimed limitations. Further, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Chikugo teaches a controller which adjusts the valve opening degrees of an inlet stream to the ejector, which is considered to adjust the size of the ejector (see 112b interpretation above).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to adjust the pressure of the first fuel into the first inlet of the ejector and or the pressure of the second fuel into the second inlet of the ejector in order to control the entrainment ratio, and therefore improve the efficiency, of the ejector, as recognized by Chikugo in view of Zhu as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Chikugo teaches the system of claim 1.
The instant claimed limitations of “the ejector is sized to fully deliver the second fuel for the required entrainment ratio (ER) at the critical current density without assistance of a blower” are considered use limitations not determining the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. See MPEP 2113.
As discussed above, the prior art of Chikugo discloses the ability to manipulate the current density of the fuel cell system, and therefore the ability to control the current density of the fuel cell system. Additionally, Zhu, cited above, established the relationship between entrainment ratio and variables of the inlet stream such as pressure, Chikugo as evidenced by or further in view of Zhu teaches that by adjusting the pressure of the entering streams to the ejector, the entrainment ratio of the ejector (and thus is overall performance) can effectively be adjusted.
Because Chikugo teaches the degree of opening of a valve (and thus its pressure) which supplies fuel to the ejector operated by a controller, and the entrainment ratio depends on the pressure of both entering streams, the ejector of the fuel cell system of Chikugo is considered sized to fully deliver the second fuel for the required entrainment ratio at the critical current density without the assistance of a blower, meeting the instant claimed limitations. Additionally, Chikugo teaches that the pressure of the second fuel may be adjusted for delivery to the ejector via a compressor for example (Paragraph 0056), which is not assistance provided by a blower.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to size the ejector to fully deliver the second fuel for the required entrainment ratio (ER) at the critical current density without assistance of a blower in order to meet the required efficiency of the ejector at the required entrainment ratio, as recognized by Chikugo in view of Zhu.
Regarding claim 5, Chikugo teaches the system of claim 1.
As discussed above, the limitation of the independent claim directed to the first pressure of the first fuel of the fuel cell system was considered a recitation of the intended use of the product and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product.
Thus, the instant claimed limitations of “the first pressure (Po) depends on a temperature of the first fuel at the first inlet” are also considered use limitations not determining the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. See MPEP 2113.
However, discussed above was how the prior art of Chikugo discloses the ability to adjust the pressure of the entering fuel streams, including the pressure of the first fuel at the first inlet (PO) of the ejector.
Therefore, the fuel cell system of Chikugo is considered capable of the first pressure (Po) depending on a temperature of the first fuel at the first inlet in accordance with the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Chikugo teaches the system of claim 4.
The instant claimed limitations of “the ejector is sized based on a sizing temperature of the first fuel at the first inlet” are considered use limitations not determining the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. See MPEP 2113.
As Chikugo teaches the ejector is operational in the fuel cell system, the instant claim limitations directed to its size are considered met (see above 112b interpretation). Further, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Chikugo teaches a controller which adjusts the valve opening degrees of an inlet stream to the ejector, which is considered to adjust the size of the ejector (see 112b interpretation above).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the ejector based on a sizing temperature of the first fuel at the first inlet in order to increase the efficiency of the ejector which depends on the entrainment ratio (which subsequently depends on the pressure of the inlet streams and thus the degree of opening of the inlet), as recognized by Chikugo in view of Zhu.
Regarding claim 7, Chikugo teaches the system of claim 6.
The limitation of "the first fuel is preconditioned before entering the first inlet, wherein preconditioning comprises heating or cooling the temperature of the first fuel up to the sizing temperature, and wherein the sizing temperature can vary with operating conditions of the system” is a use limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. The use of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
As Chikugo teaches the first fuel flowing through a number of conduits, including a supply passage (Figure 1, Elemenr 32) prior to its entrance into the ejector, the Examiner presents that some heat transfer occurs between the fluid in the passage and the external environment (either heating or cooling), and thus the first fuel is considered to be preconditioned or capable of being preconditioned prior to its entrances into the first inlet, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
In the event that Chikugo is found not to teach structures in the fuel cell system being capable of heating or cooling the fuel streams, as alternate rejection is presented below in view of Zhu:
As discussed above, Zhu discloses an anode recirculation system with an ejector for a solid oxide fuel cell (Paragraph 0001). Further, Zhu teaches the anode recirculation system comprising a heat exchanger which adjusts the temperature of the inlet streams to the ejector (via the secondary flow exhaust inlet element 18 and the primary flow fuel gas inlet 19) (Paragraph 0007), notably increasing the temperature of the fuel gas via heat exchange (Paragraph 0009) (Figure 1). Zhu teaches that by increasing the temperature of the primary flow medium of the ejector, the entrainment ratio of the ejector can be significantly increased and the performance of the anode recirculation system can be improved (Paragraph 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fuel cell system of Chikugo to incorporate the teachings of Zhu in which a heat exchanger is installed to control the temperature of the entering streams to the ejector. Doing so would advantageously result in an increase in the entrainment ratio of the ejector and thus improved performance, as recognized by Zhu.
Thus, the resulting structure of the modification of Chikugo in view of Zhu is a heat exchanger with inlet streams from the first fuel and the second fuel and outputs the first and second fuels separately into the ejector. Therefore, Chikugo in view of Zhu is considered capable of preconditioning the first fuel before it enters the first inlet, wherein preconditioning comprises heating or cooling the temperature of the first fuel up to the sizing temperature, and wherein the sizing temperature can vary with operating conditions of the system in accordance with the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Chikugo teaches the system of claim 7.
As discussed above, the limitation of claim 7 directed to preconditioning of the first fuel stream was considered a recitation of the intended use of the product and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product.
Thus, the instant claimed limitations of “the heating or cooling the first fuel comprises using heat exchange with other components of the fuel cell system such as a coolant or compressor air stream” are also considered use limitations not determining the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. See MPEP 2113.
However, also discussed above was how the first fuel in the conduits of Chikugo would be capable of some level of heat exchange with the surrounding environment, and thus the heating or cooling the first fuel would be capable of using heat exchange with other components of the fuel cell system in accordance with the instant claimed limitations.
However, also discussed above was how the prior art of Chikugo in view of Zhu discloses a heat exchanger installed upstream of the inlet to the ejector, in which heat exchange occurs between a cold fluid and a hot fluid (Zhu, Paragraph 0016)
Therefore, the fuel cell system of Chikugo in view of Zhu is considered capable of heating or cooling the first fuel using heat exchange with other components of the fuel cell system such as a coolant or compressor air stream, in accordance with the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Chikugo teaches the system of claim 7.
As discussed above, the limitation of claim 7 directed to preconditioning of the first fuel stream was considered a recitation of the intended use of the product and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product.
Thus, the instant claimed limitations of “the heating or cooling the first fuel comprises one or more pipes or tubes directing the first fuel in proximity to other components of the fuel cell system” are also considered use limitations not determining the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. See MPEP 2113.
The Examiner presents that the structural requirements of the instant limitation include at least one pipe or tube through which first fuel flows.
Also discussed above was how the first fuel in the conduits of Chikugo would be capable of some level of heat exchange with the surrounding environment, and thus the heating or cooling the first fuel comprises one or more pipes or tube directing the first fuel in proximity to other components of the fuel cell system in accordance with the instant claimed limitations.
Also discussed above was how the prior art of Chikugo in view of Zhu discloses a heat exchanger installed upstream of the inlet to the ejector, in which heat exchange occurs between a cold fluid and a hot fluid (Zhu, Paragraph 0016). As illustrated in Figure 1 of Zhu, pipes/tubes connect the heat exchanger (Figure 1, Element 13) to the conduit containing the first fuel (extending from outlet Element 11) and the entrance to the ejector (extending from the inlet Element 19). Additionally, the fuel cell system of Chikugo also embodies network of piping which transports the various fuels throughout the fuel cell system.
Therefore, the fuel cell system of Chikugo in view of Zhu is considered capable of the heating or cooling the first fuel comprises one or more pipes or tubes directing the first fuel in proximity to other components of the fuel cell system in accordance with the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Chikugo teaches the system of claim 1.
As Chikugo teaches the ejector is operational in the fuel cell system, the instant claim limitations of “the ejector is sized to meet the target entrainment ratio at or above a current density threshold, and wherein the target entrainment ratio is based on a minimum excess fuel ratio or a minimum anode gas inlet humidity” are considered met (see above 112b interpretation).
Further, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Chikugo teaches a controller which adjusts the valve opening degrees of an inlet stream to the ejector, which is considered to adjust the size of the ejector (see 112b interpretation above).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the ejector based on the target entrainment ratio at or above a current density threshold in order to increase the efficiency of the ejector which depends on the entrainment ratio, as recognized by Chikugo in view of Zhu.
Regarding claim 11, Chikugo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the fuel cell system further comprises a blower (recirculation pump/blower) (Figure 1, Element 36) upstream the ejector (Figure 1, Element 34) (Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 12, Chikugo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the effective efficiency (η) varies with operating conditions of the ejector.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Chikugo teaches a controller which adjusts the valve opening degrees of an inlet stream to the ejector, which is considered to adjust the size of the ejector (see 112b interpretation above).
Further, because Chikugo teaches the pressure of the inlet streams of the ejector may be controlled in the system, Chikugo as evidenced by or further in view of Zhu teaches the entrainment ratio (depending on the aforementioned pressures) of the ejector (and thus is overall performance) can effectively be adjusted. Thus, the effective efficiency of the ejector of Chikugo is considered capable of varying with the operating conditions of the ejector (such as pressure) or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to adjust the pressures of the inlet streams to the rejector as described by Chikugo to affect the entrainment ratio of the ejector, and thus overall performance and effective efficiency of the ejector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights