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 .
Claims 13-20 are pending in application.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: “[…] conveying means arranged to provide a flow of liquid hydrogen to a position at or near the heater […]” in claim 13, lines 9-10.
Because this claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marandi et al. (Energy Conversion and Management 2021, 244, 114532).
Marandi et al. discloses a fuel cell system which recovers waste heat (page 3, last full paragraph) from a PEMFC, or a proton exchange membrane fuel cell, (first paragraph of introduction). The fuel cell system comprises a fuel cell stack (page 3, last paragraph; Fig. 1a, LT-PEM Fuel Cell) and a Rankine cooling circuit (Fig. 1a, flows O1 through O4) which is designed to convert waste heat from the fuel cell stack to useful work via the hydrogen expander (page 5, last full paragraph; Fig. 1a, BOG Expander) during operation of the fuel cell system. Marandi et al. further describe the Rankine cooling circuit as comprising an evaporator (page 5, last full paragraph; Fig. 1a, Evaporator 1) which serves as a heater arranged to heat organic coolant fluid (Fig. 1a, Line O2) entering the evaporator in the cooling circuit. The cooling circuit also comprises a turbine (Fig. 1a, Turbine 1) upstream a condenser (Fig. 1a, Condenser 1) and includes a pump (Fig. 1a, Pump 1) used as a means arranged to drive organic coolant fluid around the cooling circuit. Marandi et al. also describe the fluid circuit has having organic cooling fluid in gaseous form downstream the evaporator and liquid form downstream the condenser (page 5, last full paragraph). The fuel cell stack includes a Therminol circuit (Fig. 1a, Lines T1, T2, and T3) to heat the cooling fluid in the evaporator and the fuel cell stack is therefore downstream the condenser in the cooling circuit, hence meeting the claimed limitation of the cooling circuit having gaseous cooling fluid between the heater and condenser and liquid cooling fluid between the condenser and fuel cell stack.
The fuel cell system of Marandi et al. further comprises a cargo liquid hydrogen tank (page 5, last full paragraph) and a conduit serving as a conveying means (Fig. 1a, Line B1) which is arranged to provide the flow of liquid hydrogen to the condenser, which is a position near the evaporator, or heater, on the Rankine cooling circuit, to be vaporized using heat supplied by the evaporator via the organic cooling fluid (Fig. 1a, Line O4). Additionally, gaseous hydrogen flows from the condenser to the fuel inlet to the fuel cell (Fig. 1a, position P1) during operation of the fuel cell system via the condenser such that gaseous hydrogen is in thermal contact with the organic coolant fluid in the condenser.
Regarding claim 14, the fuel cell stack is a PEMFC, or a proton exchange membrane fuel cell, (first paragraph of introduction).
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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clawson (US PG Pub 2003/0170518 A1) in view of Marandi et al. (Energy Conversion and Management 2021, 244, 114532).
Regarding claim 13, Clawson describes a fuel cell system (title) comprising a fuel cell stack (para. [0054], Fig. 3, ref. 110) and a cooling apparatus (para. [0055], Fig. 3, ref. 116) which is used to remove waste heat from the fuel cell stack via a cooling loop (Fig. 3, ref. 130). Furthermore, Clawson discloses the addition of a Rankine cycle to advantageously recover waste heat from the fuel cells during operation of the fuel cell system (para. [0009]-[0010]). The cooling circuit also includes the cooling apparatus, which is a part of the fuel cell stack, a burner (para. [0059], Fig. 3, ref. 140) or heater, a turbine (para. [0061], Fig. 3, ref. 144) and downstream condensing radiator (para. [0063], Fig. 3, ref. 154), or condenser. The burner is arranged to heat humidified cathode exhaust (para. [0057], Fig. 3, ref. 146) and the condensing radiator recycles water from the cooled exhaust stream (para. [0063], Fig. 3, ref. 152) downstream the turbine, and hence the burner is arranged to heat coolant fluid, or water, in the cooling circuit. Clawson also describes a means to drive coolant fluid around the circuit via saturator makeup pump (para. [0063], Fig. 3, ref. 158) and the fuel cell cooling pump (para. [0055], Fig. 3, ref. 132). The coolant fluid is in the form of steam between the burner and the condensing radiator (para. [0059]-[0063]) and in liquid water form between the condensing radiator and the fuel cell stack (para. [0063]).
Clawson also discloses that the fuel cell system is applicable to “non-hybridized” or “pure” hydrogen fuel cell power systems (para. [0024]) which may rely on liquid hydrogen storage (para. [0025]) and that the hydrogen is supplied to the anode of the fuel cell (para. [0058], Fig. 3, ref. 112) via a conduit, indicated as a line between the hydrogen source (para. [0054], Fig. 3, ref. 120) and fuel cell anode in Fig. 3. Hence, the conduit between the hydrogen source (para. [0054], Fig. 3, ref. 120) and anode described by Clawson is a conveying means arranged to provide a flow of liquid hydrogen.
However, Clawson fails to teach the flow of liquid hydrogen to a position at or near the heater and a flow of gaseous hydrogen from said position to a hydrogen fuel input of the fuel cell stack via the condenser.
Marandi et al. teaches a system which recovers waste heat (page 3, last full paragraph) from a PEMFC (proton exchange membrane fuel cell) (first paragraph of introduction) using a condenser (page 5, last full paragraph; Fig. 1a, condenser 1) which is integrated into a Rankine cycle (Fig. 1a, flows O1 through O4) downstream the turbine (Fig. 1a, turbine 1) to heat cryogenic hydrogen gas (page 5, last full paragraph) which enters the fuel cell via an inlet line (Fig. 1a, line P1). Furthermore, the Marandi et al. teaches a conveying means (Fig. 1a, Line B1) which is configured to supply a flow of liquid hydrogen from the cargo liquid hydrogen tank (Fig. 1a, cargo LH2 tank) to the condenser of the Rankine cycle, and hence at or near the evaporator (Fig. 1a, Evaporator 1), or heater, where it is evaporated using heat supplied by the heater via the cooling fluid in the condenser (Page 5, last full paragraph). Additionally, gaseous hydrogen entering the condenser (Fig. 1a, line B2) is in thermal contact with the coolant fluid entering the condenser (Fig. 1a, line O4).
Furthermore, Marandi et al. teaches that waste heat may be recovered from a low-temperature source and the efficiency of a Rankine cooling cycle used to recover waste heat from such sources improves when cryogenic fluids are used as a heat sink in the cycle (page 3, first full paragraph).
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 utilized the condensing radiator of Clawson, as a heat source to vaporize stored liquid hydrogen and supply it to the fuel cell stack to improve the efficiency of the cooling cycle by utilizing the cryogenic liquid hydrogen as a cold source, as taught by Marandi et al.
Regarding claim 14, Clawson further teaches that the fuel cell stack is a PEM fuel cell stack (para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 15, Clawson teaches that the coolant liquid of the fuel cell system may be water (para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 16, Clawson further teaches that the burner is arranged to receive hydrogen output from the PEM fuel cell stack via the anode exhaust stream (para. [0058], Fig. 3, ref. 118) and purge valve (Fig. 3, ref. 119) where it is combusted (para. [0059]). Additionally, the heat generated from the combusted anode exhaust stream in the burner is used to heat the flow of cooling fluid, or water, in the cooling circuit between the fuel cell stack and turbine by heating the humidified cathode exhaust (Fig. 3, ref. 146) via recuperator (para. [0061], Fig. 3, ref. 148) using the turbine exhaust stream (para. [0062], Fig. 3, ref. 150) downstream the burner.
The combination of Clawson and Marandi et al. teach that the resulting heat generated by combusting anode exhaust in the burner heats the flow of liquid hydrogen to vaporize the flow of liquid hydrogen and generate gaseous hydrogen via a component of the cooling circuit such as the condensing radiator (Fig. 3, ref. 156) of Clawson. Heat generated in the burner must be transferred downstream to the condensing radiator.
Regarding claim 17, Clawson further teaches that hydrogen is fed directly to the burner via a pressurized source (para. [0054], Fig. 3, ref. 120) and throttle valve (para. [0059], Fig. 3, ref. 126), and that the disclosed fuel cell system is applicable to “non-hybridized” or “pure” hydrogen fuel cell power systems (para. [0024]) which may rely on liquid hydrogen storage (para. [0025]). Additionally, the heat generated from the combusted liquid hydrogen stream in the burner is used to heat the flow of cooling fluid, or water, in the cooling circuit between the fuel cell stack and turbine by heating the humidified cathode exhaust (Fig. 3, ref. 146) via recuperator (para. [0061], Fig. 3, ref. 148) using the turbine exhaust stream (para. [0062], Fig. 3, ref. 150) downstream the burner.
The combination of Clawson and Marandi et al. teach that the resulting heat generated by combusting liquid hydrogen in the burner heats the remaining flow of liquid hydrogen to vaporize the flow of liquid hydrogen and generate gaseous hydrogen via a component of the cooling circuit such as the condensing radiator (Fig. 3, ref. 156) of Clawson. Heat generated in the burner is transferred downstream to the condensing radiator.
Regarding claim 18, Clawson further teaches a turbocharger, which supplies pressurized air to the fuel cell, comprising an air compressor (para. [0055], Fig. 3, ref. 124) which supplies a pressurized air stream (para. [0061], Fig. 3, ref. 136) from an air inlet (para. [0055], Fig. 3, ref. 122) to the fuel cell stack via the cathode inlet line (para. [0057], Fig. 3, ref. 138). Clawson also teaches a turbine (para. [0061], Fig. 3, ref. 144) which can be configured to drive the compressor (para. [0061]). Additionally, the fuel cell system is designed to feed combustion products from the burner to the turbine of the turbocharger via the burner exhaust stream (para. [0059], Fig. 3, ref. 142).
13. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clawson (US PG Pub 2003/0170518 A1) and Marandi et al. (Energy Conversion and Management 2021, 244, 114532) in view of Morita (US Patent 7,223,487 B2).
Clawson and Marandi et al. are relied upon as described above.
The combination of Clawson and Marandi et al. fail to teach a turbocharger comprising an electric motor arranged to drive the compressor of the turbocharger.
Morita teaches a fuel cell system (title) comprising a compressor (Col. 2, Ln. 51 – Col. 3 Ln. 12; Fig. 1, ref. 6) which supplies the air electrode (Fig. 1, ref. 9) from the air intake (Fig. 1, ref. 5). The compressor is driven by a motor (Fig. 1, ref. 17) which receives electric power supplied by a generator (Fig. 1, ref. 18). The generator is driven to rotate by an expander (Fig. 1, ref. 10) or turbine driven by discharge from the air electrode (Col. 3, Ln. 10).
Furthermore, Morita teaches that it is advantageous from the standpoint of efficiency to recover heat generated by compression of air in the compressor using the expander to generate electricity (Col. 4, Ln. 46-50).
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 used the turbine of Clawson and Marandi et al. to generate electrical power supply for an electric motor driving the compressor as taught by Morita to utilize the heat generated by the air compressor and improve the efficiency of the system.
14. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clawson (US PG Pub 2003/0170518 A1) and Marandi et al. (Energy Conversion and Management 2021, 244, 114532) in view of Moxon (US PG Pub 2019/0128570 A1).
Clawson and Marandi et al. are relied upon as described above.
Clawson further teaches that the expander, or turbine (para. [0036], Fig. 3, ref. 144) has a power take-off (Fig. 3, ref. 82) which can be utilized to generate electrical power and supplement the power of the fuel cell (para. [0036]).
However, the combination of Clawson and Marandi et al. fails to teach a propulsion system comprising a propulsor arranged to receive electrical power from the fuel cell stack which generated propulsive thrust using electrical power.
Moxon teaches a thermal management system (title) for a battery powered aircraft (para. [0002]) comprising a propeller (para. [0023], Fig. 2, ref. 5), or propulsor, which is driven by an electric motor (Fig. 2, ref. 6) which is supplied by a battery (Fig. 2, ref. 8). The battery may be a fuel cell (para. [0007]).
Moxon also teaches that integrating propellers into the thermal management system of an aircraft can result in significant efficiency improvement (para. [0004]).
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 used the fuel cell system of Clawson and Marandi et al. to supply electric power to a propulsor in the form of a propeller, to provide cooling to the aircraft and improve its efficiency, as taught by Moxon.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW JON MCMULLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0127. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/N.A.M./
Nathan A McMullen
Examiner, Art Unit 1788
09/17/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights