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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: frame 66 [0021]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenlohr et al. (US 20240141516 A1) in view of Mataga et al. (US 4465579 A).
Considering claims 1, 6 and 7, Eisenlohr discloses a hydrogen generation system, comprising: a plurality of cell stack assemblies electrically connected in series ([0009]-[0014]), each cell stack assembly including a plurality of cells ([0009]-[0014]); a plurality of fluid pathways, each fluid pathway including a plurality of conduits (implied) configured to be associated with the cell stack assemblies ([0009]-[0018]); and a hydrogen container that is separate from the cell stack assemblies and connected (implied) with at least one of the fluid pathways for receiving hydrogen generated by the cell stack assemblies ([0003], [0109] and [0147]).
Eisenlohr does not disclose the plurality of conduits each including a section comprising a dielectric material.
However, Malaga teaches conduits for inputs and outputs of the cell stack (supply and discharge pipes) (col. 7, lines 10-18) each including a section comprising a dielectric material (electrically non-conductive material) such as polytetrafluoroethylene or polyvinylidene fluoride, which are resistant to deterioration by liquids and gases within the unit cell (col. 7, liens 19-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of conduits each including a section comprising a dielectric material in the hydrogen generation system of Eisenlohr, because Malaga teaches supply and discharge pipes include electrically non-conductive material such as PTFE, which are resistant to deterioration by liquids and gases within the unit cell and which electrically isolate the liquid within the supply or discharge pipe from the liquid in the unit cell and the wall of the unit cell.
Considering claim 2, Eisenlohr discloses the plurality of fluid pathways comprises a first fluid pathway, a second fluid pathway, and a third fluid pathway; the first fluid pathway (inlet manifold 30) is configured to deliver water to the cell stack assemblies [0152]; the conduits of the first fluid pathway are first fluid conduits; each of the first fluid conduits is associated with one of the cell stack assemblies [0152]; the second fluid pathway (anodic manifold 40) is configured to carry at least oxygen and water away from the cell stack assemblies [0152], the conduits of the second fluid pathway are second fluid conduits; each of the second fluid conduits is associated with one of the cell stack assemblies [0152]; the third fluid pathway (second manifold outlet 30) is configured to carry generated hydrogen away from the cell stack assemblies [0152]; the conduits of the third fluid pathway are third fluid conduits; and each of the third fluid conduits is associated with one of the cell stack assemblies [0152].
Considering claim 3, in the system of Eisenlohr as modified by Matega, Mataga teaches at least the inside or outside surface of the portion 22 of each supply or discharge pipe should be made of an electrically non-conductive material, with specific examples of the nonconductive material include fluorine containing resins such as polytetrafluoroethylene or polyvinylidene fluoride, which are resistant to deterioration by liquids and gases within the unit cell (col. 7, liens 19-47).
Eisenlohr as modified by Matega does not disclose the section comprising dielectric material of each first fluid conduit comprises a first dielectric material; the section comprising dielectric material of each second fluid conduit comprises a second dielectric material; and the first dielectric material is different from the second dielectric material.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use different dielectric materials for different conduits through routine experimentation as different fluids flow through these conduits, for example oxygen containing fluids will have oxidizing properties and hydrogen containing fluids will have reducing properties. Therefore, one would have known to select dielectric materials that are resistant to deterioration by fluids used in the specific conduit.
Considering claim 8, in the system of Eisenlohr as modified by Matega, Eisenlohr discloses chassis with [0066] and Mataga teaches at least the inside or outside surface of the portion 22 of each supply or discharge pipe should be made of an electrically non-conductive material, preferably a pipe made of a non-conductive material (col. 7, lines 29-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sections (outside coating or non-conductive pipe) comprising the dielectric material to be configured to electrically isolate the cell stack assemblies from the supporting frame, because Mataga teaches at least the inside or outside surface of the portion of each supply or discharge pipe should be made of an electrically non-conductive material, in order to electrically isolate the liquid within the supply or discharge pipe from the liquid in the unit cell and the wall of the unit cell. The electrically non-conductive material will inherently be configured to electrically isolate the frame from the cell stack assemblies.
Considering claim 9, in the system of Eisenlohr as modified by Matega, Mataga teaches the section comprising the dielectric material extends along an entire length of at least some of the conduits (col. 7, Iines 29-48).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonston et al. (US 20200381762 A1).
Considering claim 1, Edmonston discloses a hydrogen generation system, comprising: a plurality of cell stack assemblies (14) electrically connected in series (interconnect electrically connects the fuel electrode of one cell to the air electrode of the adjacent cell) ([0017] and [0014]), each cell stack assembly including a plurality of cells (implied); a plurality of fluid pathways, each fluid pathway including a plurality of conduits (fuel rails 214) configured to be associated with the cell stack assemblies ([0024]), the plurality of conduits each including a section comprising a dielectric material (ceramic tubes 216) [0024]. Edmonston does not disclose a hydrogen container that is separate from the cell stack assemblies and connected with at least one of the fluid pathways for receiving hydrogen generated by the cell stack assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a hydrogen container in the fuel cell system of Edmonston, in order to store fuel for the fuel cell. With respect to the functional limitation reciting or receiving hydrogen generated by the cell stack assemblies, fuel cells are able to act as electrolyzers, when applying power rather than generating power, therefore the structural form of the system of Edmonston meets the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenlohr et al. and Mataga et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20230304176 A1).
Considering claims 4 and 5, Eisenlohr discloses does not disclose the first fluid conduit connected at first side of the cell stack assemblies and the second fluid conduit connected at the second side of the cell stack assemblies, and the second conduits are configured to withstand higher pressure than the first conduits.
However, Mataga discloses fluid conduits at the opposite sides of the cell stack assembly (Fig. 1).
Watanabe teaches that by making the pressure of the cathode chamber higher than that of the anode chamber, cross leakage of oxygen to the side of the cathode chamber can be suppressed and hydrogen purity can be maintained high [0220].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outlets and inlets of the fluids on opposite sides in the stack assembly of Eisenlohr, because Mataga discloses such stacks with opposite inlet outlet arrayments are known.
It would have been obvious to have first conduits configured to withstand higher pressure than the second conduits, because Watanabe teaches that by making the pressure of the cathode chamber higher than that of the anode chamber, cross leakage of oxygen to the side of the cathode chamber can be suppressed and hydrogen purity can be maintained high.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
