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 6 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.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “the first processing again.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “first processing” in the claim. The examiner will interpret the claim as, “… in response to determining that the certain period has elapsed, execute the air interruption, the hydrogen supply, the hydrogen interruption, and the first waiting again.”
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condit et al. (EP-1402588-B1) in view of Kumada et al. (US-20090035630-A1), hereafter referred to as Condit and Kumada, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Condit teaches a fuel cell unit (“a fuel cell system,” paragraph 4) comprising: a stack including at least one cell including an anode electrode, a cathode electrode, and a catalyst [“a fuel cell 102 comprising an anode 104 (which may also be referred to herein as the anode electrode), a cathode 106,” paragraph 14; “anode includes an anode substrate 110 having an anode catalyst layer 112,” paragraph 14; “cathode includes a cathode substrate 114, having a cathode catalyst layer 116,” paragraph 14];
a plurality of channels including: a hydrogen supply channel for supplying hydrogen to the anode electrode (Fig. 1 shows Hydrogen Source 140 is connected to a channel to the anode electrode 104 via inlet 30); a hydrogen discharge channel for discharging the hydrogen from the anode electrode (Figure 1 shows a hydrogen discharge channel from the anode electrode, starting at outlet 132; “The anode flow field plate 118 has a plurality of channels 128 extending thereacross adjacent the anode substrate forming an anode flow field for carrying a hydrogen containing fuel across the anode from an inlet 130 to an outlet 132,” paragraph 15); an air supply channel for supplying air to the cathode electrode; and an air discharge channel for discharging the air from the cathode electrode (“cathode flow field plate 120 has a plurality of channels 122 extending thereacross adjacent the cathode substrate forming a cathode flow field for carrying an oxidant, preferably air, across the cathode from an inlet 124 to an outlet 126,” paragraph 15; Fig. 1 shows Air Source 142 is connected to a channel that feeds air to cathode electrode 106 via inlet 124 and is discharged via outlet 126);
a plurality of valves including: a hydrogen supply valve configured to open and close the hydrogen supply channel (“A fuel feed valve 158 in a fuel feed conduit 160 to the anode flow field,” paragraph 19; 158 in Fig. 1); a hydrogen discharge valve configured to open and close the hydrogen discharge channel (“an anode exhaust vent valve 162 in an anode exhaust conduit 164,” paragraph 19; 162 in Fig. 1); an air supply valve configured to open and close the air supply channel (“air flow valves 139a and 141a,” paragraph 19; 139a in Fig. 1); and an air discharge valve configured to open and close the air discharge channel (“air flow valves 139a and 141a,” paragraph 19; 141a in Fig. 1);
a voltage measuring unit configured to measure a stack voltage between the anode electrode and the cathode electrode of the stack (“diode 149, connected across the cathode and anode, senses the cell voltage,” paragraph 22); and
a series of control steps to control the plurality of valves to open and close the plurality of channels, respectively, wherein the control steps are designed to, in a state where the stack is not supplying electric power to an external load (“the switch 154 in the external circuit 143 is opened to disconnect the primary load 148,” paragraph 21), execute: air interruption for interrupting supply of the air to the cathode electrode, the air interruption including controlling the air supply valve to close the air supply channel and controlling the air discharge valve to close the air discharge channel (“flow of fresh air to the cathode flow field is turned off by closing the air inlet and air exit valves 139a and 141 a,” paragraph 21); subsequent to the air interruption to interrupt the supply of the air to the cathode electrode, hydrogen supply for supplying the hydrogen to the anode electrode, the hydrogen supply including controlling the hydrogen discharge valve to close the hydrogen discharge channel (“the anode exhaust vent valve 162 will remain open or be closed,” paragraph 21) and controlling the hydrogen supply valve to open the hydrogen supply channel (“fuel flow valve 158 remains open,” paragraph 21); subsequent to the hydrogen supply to supply the hydrogen to the anode electrode, hydrogen interruption for interrupting the supply of the hydrogen to the anode electrode, the hydrogen interruption including controlling the hydrogen supply valve to close the hydrogen supply channel (“Once all the oxygen within the anode and cathode flow fields is consumed, the fuel feed valve 158 and the anode exhaust vent valve 162, if open, are shut,” paragraph 24); and subsequent to the hydrogen interruption to interrupt the supply of the hydrogen to the anode electrode, first waiting including waiting until a stack voltage reaches a level lower than a certain voltage threshold, the stack voltage being measured by the voltage measuring unit (“diode 149, connected across the cathode and anode, senses the cell voltage and allows current to pass through the load 148 as long as the cell voltage is above the pre-selected value,” paragraph 22; “When the cell voltage drops to 0.2 volts per cell, substantially all the oxygen within the cathode flow field, and any that has diffused across the cell, will have been consumed,” paragraph 22).
Condit does not explicitly teach a controller configured to execute these steps. However, Kumada teaches managing the gas flow of a fuel cell system during shutdown using a control device configured to open/close a plurality of channels in a series of steps (“a system-shutdown controller configured to integrally control the system shutdown process,” paragraph 11; “the system-shutdown controller is configured to airtightly close the fresh-air control valves,” paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to take the fuel cell unit and control steps taught by Condit and modify it to include the controller taught by Kumada configured to execute the control steps, in order to automate the shutdown process and, thus, make it more efficient.
Regarding Claim 2, Condit does not specifically teach that the hydrogen to be supplied to the anode electrode in the hydrogen supply is at a higher pressure than a pressure of the air in the cathode. However, Kumada further teaches the hydrogen to be supplied to the anode electrode in the hydrogen supply is at a higher pressure than a pressure of the air in the cathode [“the anode pressure is set to high pressure not less than atmospheric pressure and not less than the cathode pressure,” paragraph 51; “hydrogen system 10 is configured to supply hydrogen as the fuel gas from a fuel supply device (for example, a fuel tank as a high pressure hydrogen tank, a hydrogen storage alloy, or the like),” paragraph 31]. Kumada teaches the benefit is that “since the anode pressure is set to higher than the cathode pressure, and hydrogen is secured enough to consume oxygen at the cathode 1b. It is therefore possible to set the value of current extracted from the fuel cell stack 1 high and further increase the oxygen consumption rate at the cathode 1b, thus further shortening the system shutdown time,” paragraph 40.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to take the fuel cell unit taught by Condit, with the controller taught by Kumada, and modify it such that the hydrogen supply is higher pressure than the air supply, as further taught by Kumada. Doing so would increase the oxygen consumption rate and thus shorten the system shutdown time.
Regarding Claim 3, Condit further teaches the control sequence wherein, in response to the stack voltage having reached a level lower than the certain voltage threshold in the first waiting (“the diode 149, connected across the cathode and anode, senses the cell voltage and allows current to pass through the load 148 as long as the cell voltage is above the pre-selected value,” paragraph 22), execute second waiting including waiting in a state where the stack can supply electric power to the external load (“When the cell voltage drops to 0.2 volts per cell, substantially all the oxygen within the cathode flow field, and any that has diffused across the cell, will have been consumed. The auxiliary load may now be disconnected by opening the switch 156; but it is preferred to leave it connected throughout the remainder of the shut down procedure,” paragraph 22; the stack can still supply electric power to the external load by simply closing switch 154 in Fig. 1), and wherein the controller maintains the state where the plurality of channels are closed during the second waiting (“Once all the oxygen within the anode and cathode flow fields is consumed, the fuel feed valve 158 and the anode exhaust vent valve 162, if open, are shut,” paragraph 24, indicating that these valves are closed during the second waiting).
Again, Condit does not explicitly teach a controller configured to execute these steps. However, Kumada teaches managing the gas flow of a fuel cell system during shutdown using a control device configured to open/close a plurality of channels in a series of steps (“a system-shutdown controller configured to integrally control the system shutdown process,” paragraph 11; “the system-shutdown controller is configured to airtightly close the fresh-air control valves,” paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to take the fuel cell unit and control steps taught by Condit and modify it to include the controller taught by Kumada configured to execute the control steps, in order to automate the shutdown process, including the first and second waiting, and make it more efficient.
Regarding Claim 4, Condit does not explicitly teach that the voltage threshold is greater than a voltage lower limit of the stack. Condit does disclose the voltage threshold per cell (“the cell voltage is lowered to a pre-selected value, preferably 0.2 volts per cell,” paragraph 22) but does not connect this explicitly to a voltage lower limit. However, the instant application notes that “the voltage lower limit of each of the sixteen cells 10 included in the fuel cell 1A is 0.1 V,” paragraph 40. Condit teaches a hydrogen-air cell with platinum catalysts (paragraph 32), the same type of fuel cell as in the instant application, and the voltage threshold disclosed by Condit exceeds 0.1 V per cell.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condit in view of Kumada and in further view of Brighton II, et al. (US-20090044994-A1), hereafter referred to as Brighton II.
Regarding Claim 5, Condit does not explicitly teach a filter is disposed at the air supply channel. However, Brighton II teaches a hydrogen-air fuel cell unit wherein a filter disposed at the air supply channel in order purify the incoming air supply (“Air filter 128 may be included to purify ambient air 130 prior to its use in fuel cell system 20,” paragraph 41; 128 and 130 in Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the fuel cell unit taught by Condit, modified with the controller taught by Kumada, and add an air filter to the air supply channel in order purify the incoming air, as taught by Brighton II. (Brighton II also discloses a controller for controlling valves in a fuel cell unit, “Control logic 42 operates control valves 32a and 32b for a variety of purposes, such as to provide fuel cell stack 22 with substantially constant absolute pressure compressed air flow for particular operating conditions,” paragraph 42.)
Condit also does not explicitly teach that in the air interruption, the controller executes the controlling the air discharge valve to close the air discharge channel subsequent to the controlling the air supply valve to close the air supply channel. Instead, Condit discloses closing the air supply valve and air discharge valve without specifying in which order (“flow of fresh air to the cathode flow field is turned off by closing the air inlet and air exit valves 139a and 141 a,” paragraph 21). Additionally, Kumada discloses a controller directed by a computer program, the controller necessarily must be configured to close the air supply valve and air discharge valve, per Condit, in some particular order. There are only three possible orders of operation for this step (close air discharge valve first, close air supply valve first, close both valves simultaneously). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would easily think to configure the controller taught by Kumada to close air supply and air discharge valves in the fuel cell unit taught by Condit in the order described in Claim 5.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condit in view of Fukatsu (US-20190217845-A1), hereafter referred to as Fukatsu.
Regarding Claim 1, Condit teaches a fuel cell unit (“a fuel cell system,” paragraph 4) comprising: a stack including at least one cell including an anode electrode, a cathode electrode, and a catalyst [“a fuel cell 102 comprising an anode 104 (which may also be referred to herein as the anode electrode), a cathode 106,” paragraph 14; “anode includes an anode substrate 110 having an anode catalyst layer 112,” paragraph 14; “cathode includes a cathode substrate 114, having a cathode catalyst layer 116,” paragraph 14];
a plurality of channels including: a hydrogen supply channel for supplying hydrogen to the anode electrode (Fig. 1 shows Hydrogen Source 140 is connected to a channel to the anode electrode 104 via inlet 30); a hydrogen discharge channel for discharging the hydrogen from the anode electrode (Figure 1 shows a hydrogen discharge channel from the anode electrode, starting at outlet 132; “The anode flow field plate 118 has a plurality of channels 128 extending thereacross adjacent the anode substrate forming an anode flow field for carrying a hydrogen containing fuel across the anode from an inlet 130 to an outlet 132,” paragraph 15); an air supply channel for supplying air to the cathode electrode; and an air discharge channel for discharging the air from the cathode electrode (“cathode flow field plate 120 has a plurality of channels 122 extending thereacross adjacent the cathode substrate forming a cathode flow field for carrying an oxidant, preferably air, across the cathode from an inlet 124 to an outlet 126,” paragraph 15; Fig. 1 shows Air Source 142 is connected to a channel that feeds air to cathode electrode 106 via inlet 124 and is discharged via outlet 126);
a plurality of valves including: a hydrogen supply valve configured to open and close the hydrogen supply channel (“A fuel feed valve 158 in a fuel feed conduit 160 to the anode flow field,” paragraph 19; 158 in Fig. 1); a hydrogen discharge valve configured to open and close the hydrogen discharge channel (“an anode exhaust vent valve 162 in an anode exhaust conduit 164,” paragraph 19; 162 in Fig. 1); an air supply valve configured to open and close the air supply channel (“air flow valves 139a and 141a,” paragraph 19; 139a in Fig. 1); and an air discharge valve configured to open and close the air discharge channel (“air flow valves 139a and 141a,” paragraph 19; 141a in Fig. 1);
a voltage measuring unit configured to measure a stack voltage between the anode electrode and the cathode electrode of the stack (“diode 149, connected across the cathode and anode, senses the cell voltage,” paragraph 22); and
a series of control steps to control the plurality of valves to open and close the plurality of channels, respectively, wherein the control steps are designed to, in a state where the stack is not supplying electric power to an external load (“the switch 154 in the external circuit 143 is opened to disconnect the primary load 148,” paragraph 21), execute: air interruption for interrupting supply of the air to the cathode electrode, the air interruption including controlling the air supply valve to close the air supply channel and controlling the air discharge valve to close the air discharge channel (“flow of fresh air to the cathode flow field is turned off by closing the air inlet and air exit valves 139a and 141 a,” paragraph 21); subsequent to the air interruption to interrupt the supply of the air to the cathode electrode, hydrogen supply for supplying the hydrogen to the anode electrode, the hydrogen supply including controlling the hydrogen discharge valve to close the hydrogen discharge channel (“the anode exhaust vent valve 162 will remain open or be closed,” paragraph 21) and controlling the hydrogen supply valve to open the hydrogen supply channel (“fuel flow valve 158 remains open,” paragraph 21); subsequent to the hydrogen supply to supply the hydrogen to the anode electrode, hydrogen interruption for interrupting the supply of the hydrogen to the anode electrode, the hydrogen interruption including controlling the hydrogen supply valve to close the hydrogen supply channel (“Once all the oxygen within the anode and cathode flow fields is consumed, the fuel feed valve 158 and the anode exhaust vent valve 162, if open, are shut,” paragraph 24); and subsequent to the hydrogen interruption to interrupt the supply of the hydrogen to the anode electrode, first waiting including waiting until a stack voltage reaches a level lower than a certain voltage threshold, the stack voltage being measured by the voltage measuring unit (“diode 149, connected across the cathode and anode, senses the cell voltage and allows current to pass through the load 148 as long as the cell voltage is above the pre-selected value,” paragraph 22; “When the cell voltage drops to 0.2 volts per cell, substantially all the oxygen within the cathode flow field, and any that has diffused across the cell, will have been consumed,” paragraph 22).
Condit does not explicitly teach a controller configured to execute these steps. However, Fukatsu teaches managing the fuel/air flow of a fuel cell system using a control device configured to open/close a plurality of channels in a series of steps [“The control unit 6 is provided with a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 60 configured to control the operation of the respective components of the control unit 6,” paragraph 31; “control unit 6 is connected with the respective components of the power generation unit 100 and with the primary hydrogen shut-off valve 21 of the fuel unit 200, and the control unit 6 controls the operation of the respective components and the primary hydrogen shut-off valve 21,” paragraph 34].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to take the fuel cell unit and control steps taught by Condit and modify it to include the controller taught by Fukatsu configured to execute the control steps in Condit, in order to automate the shutdown process and, thus, make it more efficient.
Regarding Claim 6, Condit does not teach that, in response to the stack voltage having reached the level lower than the certain voltage threshold in the first waiting, determine whether a certain period has elapsed, and in response to determining that the certain period has elapsed, execute the air interruption, the hydrogen supply, the hydrogen interruption, and the first processing again. However, Fukatsu teaches that the controller is configured to monitor whether a predetermined time has elapsed since the last execution of a series of steps to purge the fuel cell, and in response to determining that the certain period has elapsed, repeat the process again [“CPU 60 causes the clock unit 63 to measure an air discharge cycle time t1 (S1). Here, the air discharge cycle time t1 is an elapsed time from when the power generation unit 100 starts power generation for the first time of air discharge, or is an elapsed time from when purge is performed last time from the second time of air discharge,” paragraph 42; “The CPU 60 determines whether the air charge cycle time t1 has exceeded a threshold value J or not,” paragraph 43; “The CPU 60 resets the air discharge cycle time t1 back to zero,” paragraph 49].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to take the fuel cell unit and control steps taught by Condit and modify it to include the controller taught by Fukatsu configured to execute the control steps in Condit, and periodically repeat those control steps after a predetermined time has elapsed, as further taught by Fukatsu in order to better protect the platinum catalyst from oxidation by air over time.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condit in view of Kumada and in further view of Suh (US-20060228594-A1), hereafter referred to as Suh.
Regarding Claim 7, Condit does not explicitly teach that, in the first waiting, the stack voltage is measured by the voltage measuring unit driven by electric power generated by the stack. However, Suh teaches a fuel cell unit wherein, during the shutdown process, the stack voltage is measured by the voltage measuring unit (“voltage measurer 190,” paragraph 39) driven by electric power generated by the stack (Fig. 3 shows that voltage measurer 190 can be driven by electric power generated by the fuel cell stack 100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the fuel cell unit taught by Condit, modified with the controller taught by Kumada, and electrically connect the voltage measuring unit to the fuel cell, as taught by Suh, in order to more flexibly operate the device upon shutdown.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights