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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “main body 110” should read “main body 100”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and its dependent claims 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 7 recites the limitation “a coolant line” on line 2. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a coolant line” already recited in Claim 1, or not.
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(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., KR20200070718A, (“Lee”, “Machine Translation of KR20200070718A”, published 2020, 43 total pages), in view of Park et al., (“Park”, US 2022/0221500).
Regarding Claims 1-5, Lee discloses a coolant reservoir, (See paragraph [0001] & [0003] and See Figure 5, Ion Filter Housing 100, See paragraph [0028]), comprising: an ion filter, (Ion Resin 110, See Figure 5, See paragraph [0029]); and a main body in which a coolant to cool a fuel cell stack is stored, (Interior of Housing 100 with different passages 103/104, See Figure 5, See paragraphs [0028]-[0031]); wherein the ion filter is mounted within the main body and configured to be connected to a coolant line, through which the coolant flows, (Resin 110 (106) mounted within Housing 100 and connected to Passage 101 through which coolant passes, See Figure 5, See paragraph [0028] & [0034]), to remove ions contained in the coolant when a conductivity of the reservoir changes, (See paragraph [0046]-[0049]).
Lee does not disclose when a measured insulation resistance value of a fuel cell system changes.
Park discloses when a measured insulation resistance value of a fuel cell system changes, (See paragraphs [0064], [0066], & [0067], Park).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the coolant reservoir of Lee by incorporating when a measured insulation resistance value of a fuel cell system changes as in Park because “when an insulation resistance value reached less than a minimum reference value, a driver was notified of a breakdown of insulation resistance”, (See paragraph [0006], Park), and determine whether it “is due to insulation breakdown of the fuel cell”, (See paragraph [0015], Park), or “due to an increase in ionic conductivity”, (See paragraphs [0018] & [0019], Park), and “it is assumed that an ion filter is the cause”, (See paragraph [0007], Park).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The coolant reservoir of claim 1, wherein, when the measured insulation resistance value is less than a set mounting resistance value, a mounting position of the ion filter is lowered and the ion filter is connected to the coolant line, (See paragraph [0047]-[0049], Lee; See paragraphs [0064], [0066], & [0067], Park).
Claim 3: The coolant reservoir of claim 2, wherein, when the measured insulation resistance value is greater than a set detachment resistance value while the ion filter is connected to the coolant line, the mounting position of the ion filter is raised, (See paragraph [0051]-[0052], Lee; See paragraphs [0064], [0066], & [0067], Park), and the ion filter is disconnected from the coolant line, (See paragraph [0055], Lee; See paragraphs [0064], [0066], & [0067], Park).
Claim 4: The coolant reservoir of claim 3, wherein the set detachment resistance value is set greater than the set mounting resistance value, (See paragraph [0055], Lee; See paragraphs [0064], [0066], & [0067], Park).
Claim 5: The coolant reservoir of claim 1, wherein the ion filter comprises: a filter cartridge having an ion exchange resin configured to filter the ions contained in the coolant, (Resin 110 of Filter, See Figure 5, See paragraph [0029], [0032], [0044], [0045], Lee); and an actuation member configured to provide a driving force for changing a mounting position of the filter cartridge, (Actuator 121 and Lifting Shaft 122 moving Resin 110 vertically, See Figure 5, 6, See paragraph [0038], [0040], [0048], Lee).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., KR20200070718A, (“Lee”, “Machine Translation of KR20200070718A”, published 2020, 43 total pages), in view of Park et al., (“Park”, US 2022/0221500), in further view of Miller, (US 2023/0101114).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Lee discloses the coolant reservoir of claim 5, but does not disclose wherein the filter cartridge has a mesh net structure comprising the ion exchange resin.
Miller discloses wherein the filter cartridge has a mesh net structure comprising the ion exchange resin., (Ion Exchange Filter 32 comprised within Screens 42 at either end, See Figures 1-3, See paragraph [0035], or See paragraph [0036], Miller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the coolant reservoir of modified Lee by incorporating further comprising a water level sensor configured to detect a water level of the coolant by floating within the main body as in Miller “to contain the ion exchange resin…therein” in the cartridge, (See paragraph [0035], Miller).
Claim(s) 7, 9 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., KR20200070718A, (“Lee”, “Machine Translation of KR20200070718A”, published 2020, 43 total pages), in view of Park et al., (“Park”, US 2022/0221500), in further view of Morita et al., JP2010017667A, (“Morita”, “Machine Translation of JP2010017667A”, published 2010, 53 total pages).
Regarding Claims 7, 9 & 10, modified Lee discloses the coolant reservoir of claim 5, wherein the main body has an internal housing including a coolant line through which the coolant flows, (Housing 100 connected to Passage 101 through which coolant passes, See Figure 5, See paragraph [0028] & [0034], Lee), but does not disclose the internal housing further including an upright partition wall having a height greater than a water level of the coolant.
Morita discloses the internal housing further including an upright partition wall having a height greater than a water level of the coolant, (Housing Case 41 in Figure 9 in which a certain position blocks the flow of coolant upwards, See paragraphs [0044] & [0045], Morita).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the coolant reservoir of modified Lee by incorporating the internal housing further including an upright partition wall having a height greater than a water level of the coolant as in Morita in order to produce “a state that prioritizes exchange efficiency, with high pressure loss and high exchange efficiency”, (See paragraph [0045], Morita).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 9: The coolant reservoir of claim 7, wherein, when the upright partition wall and the filter cartridge are engaged with each other, (Resin 21 is placed within Housing Case 41, See Figure 9, See paragraph [0044], Morita), the actuation member rotates the upright partition wall to provide a driving force to raise or lower the filter cartridge with respect to the internal housing, (Overall height of Resin 21 is tilted up and down in the overall case 19, See Figure 9, See paragraph [0044], Morita).
Claim 10: The coolant reservoir of claim 7, wherein, when a rotation axis of the filter cartridge is eccentrically coupled to the upright partition wall, the actuation member rotates the rotation axis to provide a driving force to raise or lower the filter cartridge with respect to the internal housing, (Housing Case 41 rotated by Solenoid 43 angularly, which tilts Resin 21 up/down within overall Case 19, See Figure 9, See paragraphs [0044] & [0045], Morita).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., KR20200070718A, (“Lee”, “Machine Translation of KR20200070718A”, published 2020, 43 total pages), in view of Park et al., (“Park”, US 2022/0221500), in further view of Morita et al., JP2010017667A, (“Morita”, “Machine Translation of JP2010017667A”, published 2010, 53 total pages), in further view of Johnson, (US 4,382,866).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Lee discloses the coolant reservoir of claim 7, wherein, the actuation member provides a driving force configured to raise or lower the filter cartridge with respect to the internal housing, (Lifting Shaft 122 connected to Resin 110 and Actuator 121, See Figure 5, Se paragraph [0048], [0052], Lee; and Housing Case 41 rotated by Solenoid 43 angularly, which tilts Resin 21 up/down within overall Case 19, See Figure 9, See paragraphs [0044] & [0045], Morita).
Modified Lee does not disclose when the filter cartridge and a wire member are connected to each other or adjusting a length of the wire member.
Johnson discloses when the filter cartridge and a wire member are connected to each other, (Springs 166 of wire connected to Filter Unit 42, See Figure 4, See column 11, lines 51-61, Johnson), and adjusting a length of the wire member, (Springs 166 of wire capable of compression, See Figure 4, See column 11, lines 51-61, Johnson).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the coolant reservoir of modified Lee by incorporating when the filter cartridge and a wire member are connected to each other and adjusting a length of the wire member as in Johnson in order to “hold the [filter cartridge] components together against that action of [backwash] flow”, (See column 11, lines 60-61, Johnson).
Claim(s) 11 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., KR20200070718A, (“Lee”, “Machine Translation of KR20200070718A”, published 2020, 43 total pages), in view of Park et al., (“Park”, US 2022/0221500), in further view of Koch, (US 2014/0138321),
Regarding Claims 11 & 12, modified Lee discloses the coolant reservoir of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a water level sensor configured to detect a water level of the coolant by floating within the main body.
Koch discloses further comprising a water level sensor configured to detect a water level of the coolant by floating within the main body, (Float Indicator with Salt Cartridge 270 as part of Chamber 240, See Figure 10, See paragraphs [0047] & [0048], Koch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the coolant reservoir of modified Lee by incorporating further comprising a water level sensor configured to detect a water level of the coolant by floating within the main body as in Koch in order to “inform the user that the water has reached an appropriate level in [the] salt cartridge”, (See paragraph [0048], Koch).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 12: The coolant reservoir of claim 11, wherein the ion filter is configured to change a mounting position depending on the water level detected by the water level sensor, (Float Indicator with Salt Cartridge 270 as part of Chamber 240 in which Spring/Valve 296 move to close, See Figures 10 & 12, See paragraphs [0047] & [0048], Koch).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights