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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to a hydrogen system for generating power, classified in CPC H01M 8/086.
II. Claims 12-20, drawn to a method of operating a phosphoric acid fuel cell stack, classified in CPC H01M 8/04225.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the method of operating the phosphoric acid fuel cell stack can be performed using different hydrogen systems and fuel cell system configurations.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Group I would require a search in at least CPC H01M 8/086, along with a unique text
search. Group II would not be searched as above and would require a search in at least CCPC H01M 8/04225, along with a unique text search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Sequin on 9/29/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 3 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.
Claim 3 recites that “the first predetermined temperature threshold is less than 60 degrees Celsius; and the first predetermined temperature threshold is greater than 150 degrees Celsius.” A single temperature threshold cannot simultaneously be less than 60°C and greater than 150°C. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear because it is not reasonably apparent whether the first predetermined temperature threshold is intended to be less than 60°C or greater than 150°C.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as requiring the first predetermined temperature threshold to be less than 60°C, based on the apparent intended relationship of the recited temperature thresholds and the surrounding limitations. Under this interpretation, the claim is examined with the first predetermined temperature threshold being less than 150°C.
Applicant is required to amend the claim to clarify whether the first predetermined temperature threshold is intended to be less than 60°C or greater than 150°C or otherwise correct the apparent inconsistency.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama et al.(US 20210367252), hereinafter Koyama, in view of Wexel et al. (US 20080118787), hereinafter Wexel.
Regarding claim 1, Koyama teaches:
A hydrogen system for generating power comprising (Abstract):
a phosphoric acid fuel cell stack selectively coupled to a hydrogen fuel source ([0113]);
a control including a processor and memory ([0124-0126], controller 90, memory device).
Koyama fails to teach:
wherein the control is configured to cause the fuel cell stack to operate in a first mode in response to a first predetermined temperature threshold being met such that the fuel cell stack generates electricity when below a target operating temperature of the fuel cell stack;
wherein the control is configured to cause the fuel cell stack to operate in a second mode in response to a second predetermined temperature threshold being met subsequent to the first predetermined temperature threshold being met, the second predetermined temperature threshold associated with the target operating temperature of the fuel cell stack.
Wexel teaches:
wherein the control is configured to cause the fuel cell stack to operate in a first mode in response to a first predetermined temperature threshold being met such that the fuel cell stack generates electricity when below a target operating temperature of the fuel cell stack ([0016], [0025-0026], controller 46);
wherein the control is configured to cause the fuel cell stack to operate in a second mode in response to a second predetermined temperature threshold being met subsequent to the first predetermined temperature threshold being met, the second predetermined temperature threshold associated with the target operating temperature of the fuel cell stack ([0016], [0025-0026], controller 46).
Wexel specifically teaches temperature setpoints for regulating the fuel cell stack ([0016], [0025-0026], controller 46).
Koyama and Wexel are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel cell systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the hydrogen fuel cell system of Koyama to substitute the controller for the controller of Wexel and to use predetermined temperature setpoints. Such a modification would provide controlled warming of the fuel cell stack during startup and controlled thermal management during operation. The modification would merely combine known fuel-cell system components according to their established functions to achieve the predictable result of controlling the operating temperature of the fuel cell stack.
Regarding claim 2, Koyama and Wexel teach the limitation of claim 1, as stated above. Koyama and Wexel teach a fuel cell stack with a controlled that use predetermined temperature setpoints. Koyama teaches a thermally primed temperature that is selected based on a percentage of a lower or upper threshold of a hydrogen-producing temperature range ([0088-0089]). Selecting the first and second predetermined temperature thresholds such that the first threshold is less than 50% of the second threshold would have been a matter of design choice based on the temperature relationships taught by Koama. The selection of particular temperature thresholds is a result-effective variable that would have been routinely optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a desired startup and operating temperature.
Koyama and Wexel are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel cell systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the hydrogen fuel cell system of Koyama to employ a first temperature threshold having the claimed relationship to the second temperature threshold, as a matter of design choice, to control the transition between startup and normal operating conditions of the fuel cell.
Regarding claim 3, Koyama and Wexel teach the limitation of claim 1, as stated above. Koyama and Wexel teach a fuel cell stack with a controlled that use predetermined temperature setpoints. Specifically, Koyama teaches lower and upper thresholds ranges of 200°C-900°C ([0089], [0113]). Additionally, Koyama teaches lower and upper thresholds ranges of 0°C-80°C ([0022]).
However, the particular selection of the first predetermined temperature threshold as less than 60°C would have been a design choice based on the desired thermal operating characteristics of the fuel cell system. The selection of particular temperature thresholds is a result-effective variable that would have been routinely optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a desired startup and operating temperature.
Koyama and Wexel are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel cell systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the hydrogen fuel cell system of Koyama to employ a first temperature threshold having the claimed relationship to the second temperature threshold, as a matter of design choice, to control the transition between startup and normal operating conditions of the fuel cell.
Regarding claim 4, Koyama and Wexel teach the limitation of claim 3, as stated above. Koyama and Wexel teach a fuel cell stack with a controlled that use predetermined temperature setpoints. Koyama teaches a thermally primed temperature that is selected based on a percentage of a lower or upper threshold of a hydrogen-producing temperature range ([0088-0089]). Selecting the first and second predetermined temperature thresholds such that the first threshold is less than 50% of the second threshold would have been a matter of design choice based on the temperature relationships taught by Koama. The selection of particular temperature thresholds is a result-effective variable that would have been routinely optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a desired startup and operating temperature.
Koyama and Wexel are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel cell systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the hydrogen fuel cell system of Koyama to employ a first temperature threshold having the claimed relationship to the second temperature threshold, as a matter of design choice, to control the transition between startup and normal operating conditions of the fuel cell.
Regarding claim 5, Koyama and Wexel teach the limitation of claim 1, as stated above. Koyama and Wexel teach a fuel cell stack with a controlled that use predetermined temperature setpoints. Specifically, Koyama teaches lower and upper thresholds ranges of 200°C-900°C ([0089], [0113]). Additionally, Koyama teaches lower and upper thresholds ranges of 0°C-80°C ([0022]).
However, the particular selection of the first predetermined temperature threshold as less than 60°C would have been a design choice based on the desired thermal operating characteristics of the fuel cell system. The selection of particular temperature thresholds is a result-effective variable that would have been routinely optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a desired startup and operating temperature.
Koyama and Wexel are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel cell systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the hydrogen fuel cell system of Koyama to employ a first temperature threshold having the claimed relationship to the second temperature threshold, as a matter of design choice, to control the transition between startup and normal operating conditions of the fuel cell.
Regarding claim 6, Koyama and Wexel teach the limitation of claim 1, as stated above. Koyama and Wexel teach a fuel cell stack with a controlled that use predetermined temperature setpoints. Additionally, they teach operating the fuel cell system at a suitable operating temperature to generate electrical output, as stated above. Selecting a particular operating temperature sufficient to obtain the desired fuel conversion and fuel prevent fuel degradation would have been a matter of design choice and optimization of a result-effective operating parameter.
Koyama and Wexel are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel cell systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the hydrogen fuel cell system of Koyama to employ the temperature-control parameters of Wexel, as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Koyama and Wexel teach the limitation of claim 1, as stated above. Koyama further teaches:
The fuel cell stack includes a plurality of fuel cells, each of the fuel cells include ([0112]):
an anode ([0112]);
a cathode ([0112]);
a solid polymer electrolyte membrane ([0112-0113]).
Koyama and Wexel are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel cell systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to employ the fuel-cell construction of Koyama, because such construction represents a known fuel-cell architecture suitable for generating electrical power.
Regarding claim 8, Koyama and Wexel teach the limitation of claim 1, as stated above. Koyama teaches a heating source ([0027], heating assembly 70).
Koyama fails to teach:
A cooling assembly for providing cooling and/or heating augmentation to the fuel cell stack, cooling assembly comprising:
a cooling loop;
a cooler coupled to the fuel cell stack;
wherein the cooler and the heating source situated in the cooling loop.
Wexel teaches:
A cooling assembly for providing cooling and/or heating augmentation to the fuel cell stack, cooling assembly comprising ([0012]):
a cooling loop ([0050], recirculation path 40);
a cooler coupled to the fuel cell stack ([0044]);
wherein the cooler and the heating source situated in the cooling loop ([0044], [0050], recirculation path 40).
Koyama and Wexel are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel cell systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the hydrogen fuel cell system of Koyama to include the cooling and heating assembly of the Wexel because the arrangement provides the predictable benefit of regulating the temperature of the fuel cell stack during startup and operation.
Regarding claim 9, Koyama and Wexel teach the limitation of claim 8, as stated above. Koyama further teaches:
an energy storage system configured to provide power to the heating source ([0029]);
wherein the controller is configured to cause the energy storage system to provide power to the heating source such that the heating source provides heating augmentation to the fuel cell stack ([0124-0126]).
Wexel teaches a controller as stated above.
Koyama and Wexel are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel cell systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to use the controller of Wexel in the system of Koyama to control the supply of electrical power from an energy storage system to the heating source for heating augmentation of the fuel cell stack. It would have been obvious to incorporate this arrangement into Koyama to provide the fuel cell stack with a controlled source of heat during startup, thereby allowing the stack temperature to be raised to a desired operating temperature before or during operation. Such a modification would provide controlled warm-up of the fuel cell stack and would be a predictable use of the energy storage and heater-control arrangements taught by Wexel.
Regarding claim 10, Koyama and Wexel teach the limitation of claim 9, as stated above. Koyama further teaches a controller for controlling the hydrogen-producing fuel cell system ([0124-0126]). Wexel teaches heater used to regulate the temperature of the fuel cell stack, including multiple heaters having respective temperature setpoints to increase the stack temperature in a stepwise manner, as stated above.
Koyama and Wexel are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel cell systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the hydrogen fuel cell system of Koyama to use the controller and temperature-controlled heating arrangement of the secondary reference to heat the fuel cell stack from a first predetermined temperature to a second predetermined temperature, because Wexel teaches increasing fuel-cell-stack temperature between multiple temperature setpoints to bring the stack to a desired operating condition.
Regarding claim 11, Koyama and Wexel teach the limitation of claim 9, as stated above. Koyama teaches a first operating condition in which the fuel cell stack produces an initial electrical output from stored hydrogen gas and a subsequent operating condition in which the fuel cell stack produces a subsequent electrical output from generated hydrogen gas (Abstract, [0006], [0025]). Koyama further teaches that the subsequent electrical output may satisfy the applied load, including completely satisfying the applied load (Abstract, [0006], [0025]).
Wexel teaches multiple temperature setpoints corresponding to different load points and teacher controlling the heaters to enable full stack output power ([0016], [0025-0026], controller 46).
Koyama and Wexel are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel cell systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the hydrogen fuel cell system of Koyama to operate the fuel cell stack at the second operating condition after the stack reaches the desired operating temperature, such that the second operating condition provides greater available stack power than the first operating condition, because increasing the operating temperature to the desired operating condition and transitioning from startup operation to normal operation would permit the fuel cell stack to operate at its intended load condition and provide increased electrical output.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571)431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
