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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, as filed 22 April 2024, are examined herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: Loop 115 and anode outlet 117 are not shown. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 3 includes the limitation “wherein the inlet is fluidly coupled to the fuel cell at a location between the anode and the cathode.” The specification at [0023] states “An inlet 105 to the water separation system 100 may be disposed between the anode 111 and the cathode 113 (e.g., downstream of the anode 111 and electrolyte membrane 103 but upstream of the cathode 113 along a flow path of hydrogen gas through the fuel cell 102, etc.). An outlet 132 to the water separation system 100 may be fluidly coupled to the anode inlet 134 of the anode 111.” Said differently, the system comprises a recirculation loop (see [0017] and FIG. 1.
Claim 4 includes the limitation “wherein the liquid separator includes a deswirl element disposed between the inlet and the outlet, the deswirl element configured to recover pressure from a substantially liquid-free gas stream leaving the liquid separator.” Examiner notes that the instant specification states that ([0019]) “the separator may include a deswirl element to recover pressure … the deswirl element may include a vane guide that supports a plurality of vanes. Said differently, a structure that reduced the vortex and recovers pressure may be a deswirl element even if it does not have vanes.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peterson (US 20140377675 A1).
Peterson teaches a fuel cell system (abstract), comprising:
a fuel cell having an anode, a membrane, and a cathode; (FIG. 1 and [0008] fuel cell system)
a gas-liquid separator having separator housing, (FIG. 2 separator housing 102, 104 gas/liquid separator 36, 100), the separator housing defining an internal cavity (FIG. 3 chamber 106), the separator housing including:
an inlet fluidly coupled to the fuel cell downstream from the anode; (FIG. 3 port shown at inlet conduit 122, [0027-0029])
an outlet fluidly coupled to an anode inlet of the anode; (FIG. 3 port 134 of outlet conduit 130, FIG. 1 gas-air separator 36, input 30; [0018] “The recirculation loop 34 is provided such that excess hydrogen unused by the anode side 14 is returned to the input 30 so may be used and not wasted.”, [0027-0029])
an outlet conduit extending axially into the internal cavity from a first axial end of the separator housing; and (FIG. 3 outlet 130, 132 [0027-0029])
a drain disposed at a second axial end of the separator housing, (FIG. 3 lower portion 104, drain 126, [0032-0033])
the separator housing further defining an inlet passage (entrance 122, 124) that fluidly couples the inlet to the internal cavity, the inlet passage extending tangentially away from an interior surface of the separator housing. (FIG. 3 inlet 124, 122, [0027-0029]).
Regarding claim 2, Peterson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Peterson further teaches wherein the inlet is arranged to receive a gas-liquid mixture from the fuel cell, ([0016] “water and residual fuel … may accumulate … collect in a separator 36”) and wherein the liquid separator is an inertial separator device ([0045) “inertial impaction with the separator”) that is configured to separate liquid from the gas-liquid mixture via an induced centripetal force to produce a substantially liquid-free gas stream at the outlet. ([0016] “separate water … return remaining constituents.”)
Regarding claim 3, Peterson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Peterson further teaches wherein the inlet is fluidly coupled to the fuel cell at a location between the anode and the cathode. (FIG. 1 showing anode 14, cathode 16, anode output 32 going into separator 36; [0048] discloses a recirculation loop) Examiner notes that the instant claim limitation is fluidly coupled, and therefore can be met with an indirect connection. (e.g. inlet is coupled to anode, anode is coupled to cathode via the membrane)
Regarding claim 4, Peterson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Peterson further teaches wherein the liquid separator includes a deswirl element disposed between the inlet and the outlet, the deswirl element configured to recover pressure from a substantially liquid-free gas stream leaving the liquid separator. (Referring to claim interpretation for “deswirl element”, above, Peterson at FIG. 3 shows tubing 132, outlet conduit 130. At [0044] “The entrance 134 to the outlet conduit 130 is spaced apart from and faces generally away from the inlet conduit 122. …. In order to exit the chamber 110 to tubing 132, the fluid turns 180 degrees, which provides for additional separation of entrained water droplets from the fluid stream. The geometry of the separator 100 causes the fluid stream to make the 180 degree turn as well as separate away from the wall, as shown by the arrows in FIG. 3 in order to reach the entrance 134 of the outlet conduit 130. … The fluid flow has a generally unobstructed, uninterrupted flow path between the inlet conduit 122 and the outlet conduit 130, which decreases the pressure drop across the separator 100.) Because tubing 132/outlet conduit 130 causes the 180 degree turn and decrease in pressure drop, that structure is a deswirl element.
Regarding claim 5, Peterson teaches all of the limitations set forth above, and Peterson further teaches wherein the liquid separator is part of a recirculation loop on an anode side of the fuel cell. ([0008] recirculation loop in an anode side)
Regarding claim 6, Peterson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Peterson further teaches further comprising a pump disposed in the recirculation loop and fluidly coupled to the liquid separator and the fuel cell. (FIG. 1 ejector 24, separator 36, fuel cell 12; [0017] ejector; [0020] recirculation loop connected to ejector 24)
Regarding claim 8, Peterson teaches a gas-liquid separator (abstract) for a fuel cell system, comprising:
a separator housing (FIG. 2 separator housing 102, 104 gas/liquid separator 36, 100), including:
a first body defining a first internal cavity and an inlet passage (inlet conduit 122 entrance region 124) fluidly coupled to the first internal cavity (FIG. 3 chamber 106), the inlet passage disposed proximate to a first axial end of the separator housing (longitudinal axis 136) and extending substantially tangentially away from a surface of the first body that defines the first internal cavity, (as shown FIG. 3) the first body includes an outlet conduit extending axially into the first internal cavity from the first axial end of the separator housing and protruding axially beyond the inlet passage; (FIG. 3 tubing 132 outlet conduit 130, 134) a second body coupled to the first body, (FIG. 3 showing chamber 106 and collection chamber 112. Examiner notes that “coupled to the first body” does not require removably coupling, therefore the structure of FIG. 3 meets this limitation. The second body defining a second internal cavity (end wall 120 collection chamber 112) and a drain at a second axial end of the separator housing; (drain 126), a separator plate (divider 108, screen 116) coupled to the body ([0028] “The divider 108 may be a screen 116, and in one embodiment is fastened within the lower portion 104 using spot welding, or another process.”); the separator plate defining a central opening that fluidly couples the first internal cavity to the second internal cavity; (screen 116 including central opening) and a drain valve coupled to the separator housing at the drain. (FIG. 1 drain valve 39.)
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.
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) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US 20140377675 A1), as set forth above, and in further view of Nonobe (US 20020094467 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Peterson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Peterson further teaches a drain valve coupled to the drain; (FIG. 1 and [0020] drain line 38; control valve 39). However, Peterson does not explicitly teach a fluid sensor coupled to the separator housing and communicably coupled to the drain valve, the fluid sensor configured to actuate the drain valve based on at least one of a level of liquid in the separator housing.
Nonobe, in the field of (abstract) fuel cell systems, discloses ([0051] and FIG. 2) a liquid separator having liquid storage 608, and a level that sensor automatically actuates cock 612 (equivalent to a drain valve).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the separator of Peterson with the sensor and sensor actuated drain valve of Nonobe, with a reasonable expectation of successfully preventing the liquid storage from overflowing.
Regarding claim 9, Peterson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however Peterson does not explicitly teach a fluid sensor, the fluid sensor coupled to the second body and communicably coupled to the drain valve, the fluid sensor configured to actuate the drain valve based on a level of water in the second internal cavity.
Nonobe, in the field of (abstract) fuel cell systems, discloses ([0051] and FIG. 2) a liquid separator having liquid storage 608, and a level that sensor automatically actuates cock 612 (equivalent to a drain valve). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the separator of Peterson with the sensor and sensor actuated drain valve of Nonobe, with a reasonable expectation of successfully preventing the liquid storage from overflowing.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US 20140377675 A1), as set forth above, and in further view of Wang, CN 110227299B, with paragraph numbering to the provided English translation.
Regarding claim 10, Peterson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, including a separator plate (divider 108, screen 116). This plate is flat. Peterson does not explicitly teach the separator plate includes a conically- shaped element that extends axially into the second internal cavity, and a circumferential flange that is sandwiched between the first body and the second body.
Wang, in the field of [0002] gas-liquid separation technology, discloses a gas-liquid separator which functions [0010] using centrifugation, inertia, and gravity to achieve improved separation efficiency while reducing pressure drop. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the separator of Peterson by making the separator plate 116 in a conical shape extending into the second body, in order to improve the use of gravity to transfer water vapor below separator plate 116, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving separation efficiency.
Peterson teaches a flange 146 and o-ring at an axial end of the separator as shown in FIG. 3 and [0042], for the purpose of sealing the chamber. At [0008] Peterson contemplates the use of the instant separator in a vehicle. Peterson and Wang do not explicitly teach a circumferential flange that is sandwiched between the first body and the second body. A person of ordinary skill would understand that that flange and O-ring are needed to seal the chamber, but there is no disclosed motivation to place them at the outlet end of the separator.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the need for serviceability of parts in the separator, and would therefore have been motivated to place the circumferential flange at the location of the conical separator plate, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving serviceability of the separator.
Regarding claim 11, Peterson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Peterson further teaches a deswirl element coupled to the outlet conduit (tubing 132 and entrance 134, outlet conduit 130). [Refer to claim interpretation of “deswirl element”, above.] However, Peterson does not explicitly teach the deswirl element positioned at least partially within the outlet conduit.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang, in the field of [0002] gas-liquid separation technology, discloses a gas-liquid separator which functions [0010] using centrifugation, inertia, and gravity to achieve improved separation efficiency while reducing pressure drop. At [0012-0013] and FIG. 5 the separator 100 uses swirl blades 210 and slit pipe 220 to create centrifugal and inertial separation, respectively. Modified FIG. 5 of Wang is shown below, showing a deswirl element (slit pipe 210) inside coupled to and partially positioned within the outlet conduit 300. Examiner notes that the support holding swirl blades 210 (not numbered, indicated with an arrow below) is part of the outlet conduit.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace the pipe entrance 134 of Peterson with the swirl blades 210 and slit pipe 220 of Wang, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving separation efficiency while reducing pressure drop.
Regarding claim 12, Peterson in view of Wang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however Peterson does not explicitly teach the deswirl element includes a vane guide and a plurality of vanes extending radially away from the vane guide, between the vane guide and an inner surface of the outlet conduit. The modification of Peterson with Wang has been rendered obvious with respect to claim 11, above. Examiner notes that the slits of the slit pipe 220 (Wang at FIG. 6) are angled, therefore they are a type of vane. They are supported by a solid ring located near the entrance to the outlet conduit (e.g. a vane guide) as shown FIG. 6. Therefore, the vanes extend radially away from the vane guide, between the vane guide an inner surface of the outlet conduit, thus meeting the instant limitation.
Regarding claims 14, 16, and 17, Peterson teaches a separator housing (FIG. 3 lower portion 104 upper portion 102), of a gas-liquid separator, comprising: a body defining an internal cavity, (FIG. 3 chamber 106) and an inlet passage that is fluidly coupled to the internal cavity and extending substantially tangentially away from a surface of the body that defines the internal cavity; (FIG. 3 inlet conduit 122, entrance region 124) an outlet conduit extending axially into the internal cavity and protruding axially beyond the inlet passage; (FIG. 3 tubing 132, outlet conduit 130).
Peterson teaches a deswirl element (FIG. 3 tubing 132, entrance 134) coupled to the outlet conduit. This is a deswirl element (see claim interpretation above) however Peterson does not explicitly teach a deswirl element disposed at least partially within the outlet conduit.
Wang, in the field of [0002] gas-liquid separation technology, discloses a gas-liquid separator which functions [0010] using centrifugation, inertia, and gravity to achieve improved separation efficiency while reducing pressure drop. At [0012-0013] and FIG. 5 the separator 100 uses swirl blades 210 and slit pipe 220 to create centrifugal and inertial separation, respectively. Modified FIG. 5 of Wang, as shown above, features a deswirl element (slit pipe 210) inside coupled to and partially positioned within the outlet conduit 300. Examiner notes that the support holding swirl blades 210 (not numbered, indicated with an arrow below) is part of the outlet conduit.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace the pipe entrance 134 of Peterson with the swirl blades 210 and slit pipe 220 of Wang, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving separation efficiency while reducing pressure drop.
This also renders obvious the limitations of claim 16, wherein at least one of the vane guide or the plurality of vanes protrudes axially beyond an end of the outlet conduit (as shown above in Wang FIG. 5) and claim 17 wherein the plurality of vanes is disposed at an inlet end of the outlet conduit.
Regarding claim 15, Peterson in view of Wang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above however Peterson does not explicitly teach the deswirl element includes a vane guide and a plurality of vanes extending radially away from the vane guide and supporting the vane guide within the outlet conduit.
The modification of Peterson with Wang has been rendered obvious with respect to claim 14, above. Examiner notes that the slits of the slit pipe 220 (Wang at FIG. 6) are angled, therefore they are a type of vane. They are supported by a solid ring located near the entrance to the outlet conduit (e.g. a vane guide) as shown FIG. 6. Therefore, the vanes extend radially away from the vane guide and support the vane guide within the outlet conduit, thus meeting the instant limitation.
Regarding claim 20, Peterson in view of Wang teaches all of the limitations as set forth in claim 14, above however Peterson does not explicitly teach wherein the deswirl element is disposed substantially within an inlet portion of the outlet conduit that extends axially into the internal cavity.
Wang, in the field of [0002] gas-liquid separation technology, discloses a gas-liquid separator which functions [0010] using centrifugation, inertia, and gravity to achieve improved separation efficiency while reducing pressure drop. At [0012-0013] and FIG. 5 the separator 100 uses swirl blades 210 (for centrifugal separation) and slit pipe 220 (for inertial separation). Examiner notes that a person or ordinary skill would understand that making the slit pipe 220 longer would create more inertial separation, while making the swirl vanes 210 longer in the axial direction would create more centrifugal separation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace the pipe entrance 134 of Peterson with the swirl blades 210 and slit pipe 220 of Wang, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving separation efficiency while reducing pressure drop. Peterson at [0008] contemplates the use of Peterson’s fuel cell in a vehicle where weight and packaging are on-going concerns, therefore a person of ordinary skill would understand the need to minimize weight and volume of fuel cell component. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the axial dimensions of the swirl blades 210 and slit pipe 220 of Peterson in view of Wang, in order to improve efficiency by balancing centrifugal and inertial separation while also considering weight and volume, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a deswirl element is disposed substantially within an inlet portion of the outlet conduit, thus meeting the instant claim limitation.
Claim(s) 13 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US 20140377675 A1), as set forth in claim 8, above.
Regarding claim 13, Peterson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Peterson further teaches a fluid receiving manifold that is coupled to the separator housing at the inlet passage, the fluid receiving manifold configured to direct a gas-liquid mixture from a fuel cell into the inlet passage. (FIG. 1 showing a connection between anode 14 and gas-water separator 36. [0020] “The recirculation loop 34 contains a separator 36, or water knock-out device. The separator 36 receives a stream or fluid mixture of hydrogen gas, nitrogen gas, and water from the output 32 of the anode side 14.” Peterson does not explicitly state that the fluid receiving manifold that is removably coupled to the separator housing. However, Peterson shows (FIG. 3) inlet pipe 122 having a groove (not numbered) in a location close to the end that could be expected to retain an O-ring. Because the separator of Peterson is for use in a vehicle the fluid receiving manifold that is removably coupled to the separator housing ([0008]) a person of ordinary skill would understand the need for serviceability and replaceability of the separator. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would select a fluid receiving manifold that is removably coupled to the separator housing, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US 20140377675 A1) and in further view of Wang, CN 110227299B, as set forth in claim 14, above, and in further view of Shibata (US 20090050105 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Peterson in view of Wang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Peterson discloses at [0008] the desirability of reduced pressure drop across the separator. However Peterson does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of vanes includes a first vane portion extending in a substantially axial direction relative to a central axis of the outlet conduit, and a second vane portion extending at an angle from the first vane portion and at least partially along a circumferential direction relative to the central axis.
Shibata, in the field of (abstract) swirl generators, discloses (FIG. 1B, FIG. 2, [as shown below] and [0028-0031] deflection fins 36 having a second vane portion extending at an angle from the first vane portion and at least partially along a circumferential direction relative to the central axis. Shibata discloses that this creates a swirl generator with reduced pressure drop.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace the outer vanes of Shibata in view of Wang with the vanes having a second angled portion of Shibata, with a reasonable expectation of successfully reducing pressure drop.
PNG
media_image2.png
396
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Peterson in view of Wang and Shibata teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Peterson further teaches wherein the inlet passage is arranged to direct a gas-liquid mixture in a first circumferential direction ([0045] “Momentum of the liquid droplets and forces caused by centripetal acceleration causes the droplets to continue on a straight path to the outer wall 118 of the separator 100. The gas portion of the fluid stream has a much lower density and is therefore able to turn and flow with the curvature of the chamber 106. The initial turn of the fluid stream after the entrance region 124 causes the first stage of liquid water separation, and the water that impacts the wall 118 flows down the sides 118 and into the collection chamber 112 below. As the fluid starts to move in a circular or helical motion around the vertical axis 136 of the separator 100, it expands into the larger volume in the chamber 110 and the fluid stream velocity decreases.”) However, Peterson does not explicitly teach the second vane portion extends along a second circumferential direction that is opposite to the first circumferential direction.
Wang at [0013] discloses that the swirl direction changes through the slit pipe to further separate the gas and liquid. The modification of Peterson with Wang is rendered obvious with respect to claim 14, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights