DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the above application filed on 12/23/2023 which is a 371 of PCT/US2022/073127 filed on 06/23/2022. This application was made Special by granting Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) status on 03/17/2025. Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/30/2025 canceled Claims 19 and 20. Claims 1 – 18 are examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, l. 3 “the hydrogen and/or gas sensors” is believed to be in error for --the hydrogen gas and/or oxygen gas sensors-- to maintain consistency with Claim 9.
Claim 15, ll. 2 – 11 are objected to because these lines are written as an apparatus claim and NOT as a method claim; however, Claim 15, ll. 1 - 2 recites “A method for increasing efficiency of an integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising”. Therefore, it is unclear if the invention of Claim 15 is an apparatus or a method.
Claim 16, ll. 3 – 14 are objected to because these lines are written as an apparatus claim and NOT as a method claim; however, Claim 16, ll. 1 - 2 recites “A method for increasing efficiency of an integrated hydrogen-electric engine, comprising the steps of”. Therefore, it is unclear if the invention of Claim 16 is an apparatus or a method.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 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 10, l. 4 recites the limitation "the heat exchanger". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 – 5, 11, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Silberhorn et al. (DE102019216905A1, cited in 01/29/2025 IDS) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Silberhorn et al. (DE102019216905A1, cited in 01/29/2025 IDS) in view of Immendoerfer et al. (10,174,669).
Regarding Claim 1, Silberhorn discloses, in sole figure, all the claimed limitations including an integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising: an air compressor system (4); a hydrogen fuel source (Machine Translation Para. [0019] teaches “a separately carried hydrogen tank”); a fuel cell (7); an elongated shaft (2) connected to the air compressor system (4) and/or a propulsor (10); a motor assembly (Machine Translation Para. [0013] teaches “…it is provided that it has at least one electric motor, wherein the fuel cell (7) is arranged in particular for its energy supply and/or wherein the electric motor is arranged for at least indirectly driving the shaft (2)”. Para. [0014] teaches “…the shaft can be driven exclusively by the combustion power of the gas turbines, exclusively by the electric motor with a throttled or completely switched off gas turbine, or by a combination of both of the aforementioned operating modes.”) disposed in electrical communication with the fuel cell (7); and a combustion chamber (6) including a turbine (5) downstream of the fuel cell (7) configured to burn or catalytically react unburned hydrogen gas in an exhaust stream (16, 17) of the fuel cell (7), to drive the turbine (5) to torque the elongated shaft (2), wherein the turbine (5) is [Examiner notes that the phrase “configured to engage the elongated shaft when rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Silberhorn can perform the function because Machine Translation Para. [0014] teaches “…the shaft can be driven exclusively by the combustion power of the gas turbines…”. Therefore, when the turbine was exclusively driving the elongated shaft said turbine would have been engaged to the elongated shaft and rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft. Claim 1 fails to recite specific structure for carrying out the recited functional limitation. And Applicant’s Claim 4 recites “wherein the turbine is fixedly connected to the elongated shaft” which is shown in Silberhorn’s sole figure.] configured to engage the elongated shaft (2) when rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft (2).
Alternatively, if one of ordinary skill in the art would not have realized that Silberhorn’s turbine was configured to engage the elongated shaft when rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft. Then Immendoerfer teaches, in Fig. 1, Col. 2, l. 55 to Col. 3, l. 2, and Col. 3, ll. 40 – 55, a similar turbine (3,15) that was configured to engage an elongated shaft (5) to drive compressor (2, 4) when rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft (5) by means of freewheel or overrunning clutch (13). Immendoerfer teaches, in Col. 2, l. 55 to Col. 3, l. 2, that “In particular, the freewheel clutch makes it possible for the compressor wheel to be driven by the electric machine independently of the turbine wheel. This reduces the load acting on the electric machine during electric drive. In particular, the freewheel clutch reduces the inertia load by approximately two-thirds, since only the compressor wheel must be accelerated, which is generally substantially lighter, but not the heavy or inert turbine wheel.” Immendoerfer teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 45 – 55, “Freewheel clutch 13 consequently makes it possible for compressor wheel 4 to overtake turbine wheel 15 or to be operated at a higher speed than turbine wheel 15. If compressor wheel 4 runs out or is driven by the electric machine, its movement is decoupled from that of turbine wheel 15, as a result of which the moment of inertia of turbine wheel 15 is also decoupled and as a result, a significantly increased angular acceleration of electric machine 11 is achievable”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Silberhorn, with the freewheel or overrunning clutch, taught by Immendoerfer, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising: an air compressor system, a hydrogen fuel source, a fuel cell, an elongated shaft connected to the air compressor system and a propulsor, an electric motor assembly, a combustion chamber including a turbine downstream of the fuel cell, and a freewheel or overrunning clutch, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating a freewheel/overrunning clutch between the turbine and the elongated shaft would have allowed the turbine to drive the air compressor system through the elongated shaft when said turbine was rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft, but when the electric motor assembly rotated the air compressor system through the elongated shaft faster than said turbine the freewheel/overrunning clutch would have de-coupled said turbine to facilitate a significantly increased angular acceleration of the air compressor system by the electric motor assembly, Immendoerfer - Col. 3, ll. 45 – 55. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 2, Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, teaches the invention as claimed, and Silberhorn further teaches, in Machine Translation Para. [0013], wherein the motor assembly includes at least one electric motor (Para. [0013] “…it is provided that it has at least one electric motor…”).
Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, as discussed above, is silent on said at least one electric motor being disposed in coaxial alignment with the elongated shaft.
Immendoerfer further teaches, in Fig. 1, at least one electric motor (11) being disposed in coaxial alignment with an elongated shaft (5) to rotate the elongated shaft to drive the compressor (2, 4).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, with the at least one electric motor being disposed in coaxial alignment with the elongated shaft, further taught by Immendoerfer, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the at least one electric motor, the elongated shaft, the compressor, and the at least one electric motor being disposed in coaxial alignment with the elongated shaft, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the coaxial aligned electric motor and elongated shaft arrangement, taught by Immendoerfer, for the non-disclosed electric motor and elongated shaft arrangement of Silberhorn, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., coaxial aligned electric motor and elongated shaft arrangement would have facilitated the same rotational axis for said at least one electric motor , the elongated shaft, and the compressor so that said at least one electric motor could rotate the elongated shaft and the compressor, Immendoerfer - Col. 3, ll. 45 – 55. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Re Claim 3, Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, teaches the invention as claimed, and Silberhorn further teaches, in Machine Translation Paras. [0013] and [0014], wherein the at least one electric motor is actuatable to rotate the elongated shaft (2). Silberhorn further teaches, in Machine Translation Para. [0014], “…the shaft can be driven … exclusively by the electric motor with a throttled or completely switched off gas turbine, or by a combination of both of the aforementioned operating modes.”)
Re Claim 4, Silberhorn, teaches the invention as claimed, including wherein the turbine (5) is fixedly connected (shown in sole figure) to the elongated shaft (2).
Re Claim 5, Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, teaches the invention as claimed, and Silberhorn further teaches, in Machine Translation Para. [0018], wherein the air compressor (4) is configured to inject excess air (15) into the combustion chamber (6). Machine Translation Para. [0018] teaches, “The air flow is compressed by compressor 4. Gas 15 compressed in this way is fed into the combustion chamber 6, where it is mixed with a fuel, which is preferably sprayed into the combustion chamber 6, and ignited together.”
Re Claim 11, Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, teaches the invention as claimed, and Silberhorn further teaches, in sole figure, further comprising a propulsor (10) supported on a distal end of the elongated shaft (2).
Re Claim 13, Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, teaches the invention as claimed, and Silberhorn further teaches, in Machine Translation Para. [0001], the integrated hydrogen-electric engine of Claim 1, configured to power an aircraft (“engine for aircraft”).
Re Claim 14, Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, teaches the invention as claimed, and Silberhorn further teaches, in Machine Translation Para. [0018], the integrated hydrogen-electric engine of Claim 1, configured to power a terrestrial vehicle (“the engine 1 drives the vehicle or aircraft equipped with it”) or a water craft.
Regarding Claim 16, Silberhorn discloses, in sole figure, all the claimed limitations including a method for increasing efficiency of an integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising the steps of: an air compressor system (4); a hydrogen fuel source (Machine Translation Para. [0019] teaches “a separately carried hydrogen tank”); a fuel cell (7); an elongated shaft (2) connected to the air compressor system (4) and/or a propulsor (10); a motor assembly (Machine Translation Para. [0013] teaches “…it is provided that it has at least one electric motor, wherein the fuel cell (7) is arranged in particular for its energy supply and/or wherein the electric motor is arranged for at least indirectly driving the shaft (2)”. Para. [0014] teaches “…the shaft can be driven exclusively by the combustion power of the gas turbines, exclusively by the electric motor with a throttled or completely switched off gas turbine, or by a combination of both of the aforementioned operating modes.”) disposed in electrical communication with the fuel cell (7); and a combustion chamber (6) including a turbine (5) downstream of the fuel cell (7) configured to burn or catalytically react unburned hydrogen gas in an exhaust stream (16, 17) of the fuel cell (7), to drive the turbine (5) to torque the elongated shaft (2), wherein the turbine (5) is [Examiner notes that the phrase “configured to engage the elongated shaft when rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Silberhorn can perform the function because Machine Translation Para. [0014] teaches “…the shaft can be driven exclusively by the combustion power of the gas turbines…”. Therefore, when the turbine was exclusively driving the elongated shaft said turbine would have been engaged to the elongated shaft and rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft. Claim 16 fails to recite specific structure for carrying out the recited functional limitation.] configured to engage the elongated shaft (2) when rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft (2), feeding the exhaust stream (16, 17) from the fuel cell (7) into the combustion chamber (6 – shown in the sole figure), igniting or catalytically burning the hydrogen gas, and directing products of combustion to spin the turbine (5), and adding energy from the spinning turbine (5) to the shaft (2 - Para. [0014] teaches “…the shaft can be driven exclusively by the combustion power of the gas turbines”).
Alternatively, if one of ordinary skill in the art would not have realized that Silberhorn’s turbine was configured to engage the elongated shaft when rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft. Then Immendoerfer teaches, in Fig. 1, Col. 2, l. 55 to Col. 3, l. 2, and Col. 3, ll. 40 – 55, a similar turbine (3,15) that was configured to engage an elongated shaft (5) to drive compressor (2, 4) when rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft (5) by means of freewheel or overrunning clutch (13). Immendoerfer teaches, in Col. 2, l. 55 to Col. 3, l. 2, that “In particular, the freewheel clutch makes it possible for the compressor wheel to be driven by the electric machine independently of the turbine wheel. This reduces the load acting on the electric machine during electric drive. In particular, the freewheel clutch reduces the inertia load by approximately two-thirds, since only the compressor wheel must be accelerated, which is generally substantially lighter, but not the heavy or inert turbine wheel.” Immendoerfer teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 45 – 55, “Freewheel clutch 13 consequently makes it possible for compressor wheel 4 to overtake turbine wheel 15 or to be operated at a higher speed than turbine wheel 15. If compressor wheel 4 runs out or is driven by the electric machine, its movement is decoupled from that of turbine wheel 15, as a result of which the moment of inertia of turbine wheel 15 is also decoupled and as a result, a significantly increased angular acceleration of electric machine 11 is achievable”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Silberhorn, with the freewheel or overrunning clutch, taught by Immendoerfer, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising: an air compressor system, a hydrogen fuel source, a fuel cell, an elongated shaft connected to the air compressor system and a propulsor, an electric motor assembly, a combustion chamber including a turbine downstream of the fuel cell, and a freewheel or overrunning clutch, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating a freewheel/overrunning clutch between the turbine and the elongated shaft would have allowed the turbine to drive the air compressor system through the elongated shaft when said turbine was rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft, but when the electric motor assembly rotated the air compressor system through the elongated shaft faster than said turbine the freewheel/overrunning clutch would have de-coupled said turbine to facilitate a significantly increased angular acceleration of the air compressor system by the electric motor assembly, Immendoerfer - Col. 3, ll. 45 – 55. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silberhorn et al. (DE102019216905A1, cited in 01/29/2025 IDS) in view of Immendoerfer et al. (10,174,669) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Reindl et al. (6,852,434) in view of D’Agostini et al. (2022/0268444A1).
Re Claim 6, Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, teaches the invention as claimed; except, further including a bypass valve configured to control an amount of excess air injected into the combustion chamber to create a stoichiometric excess of oxygen in the combustion chamber.
Reindl teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 4, l. 55 to Col. 5, l. 35, a reaction chamber (10, 11) having a bypass valve (17, 18 - Col. 5, ll. 5 – 10 “When the oxidant is compressed oxygen, oxidant supply system 20 may be more similar to depicted fuel supply system 22 and a valve may be used to regulate oxidant supply instead of compressor 18.”) configured to control an amount of oxidant injected into the reaction chamber (10, 11). Reindl teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 65 - 67, “The functions of controller 16 include controlling the amount of reactants supplied to fuel cell stack 10”.
D’Agostini teaches, in Figs. 1 – 14, Para. [0007], and Para. [0070], a similar gas turbine where a stoichiometrically excess amount of oxygen to hydrogen (known in the art as “lean” fuel to air mixture) was used to produce lean combustion which helped to reduce nitrous oxide (NOx) formation, which results in a more environmentally friendly exhaust to be output from the gas turbine system. D’Agostini teaches, in Para. [0007], “It is desirable for environmental reasons to run a gas turbine system so that its combustors or combustor section operate using lean combustion. The use of lean combustion can refer to a condition in which there is excess air, or oxygen, for combustion relative to the fuel fed to the combustion chamber for combustion”.
Thus, improving a particular device (integrated hydrogen-electric engine), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Reindl and D’Agostini, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the integrated hydrogen-electric engine of Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that utilizing a controller and a bypass valve to control an amount of excess air injected into the combustion chamber would have produced a “lean” fuel/air mixture, i.e., a stoichiometrically excess amount of oxygen to hydrogen, to facilitate lean combustion inside the combustion chamber which would have resulted in a more environmentally friendly exhaust to be output from the gas turbine system by reducing the formation of nitrous oxide (NOx). KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Silberhorn et al. (DE102019216905A1, cited in 01/29/2025 IDS) in view of Immendoerfer et al. (10,174,669) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Briggs (2,643,511).
Re Claim 7, Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, teaches the invention as claimed; except, wherein the combustion chamber includes an over pressure valve configured to dump excess pressure to atmosphere to prevent blow back from the combustion chamber to the fuel cell.
Briggs teaches, in the sole figure and Col. 6, ll. 50 – 60, an over pressure valve (39 – “pressure relief valve”) configured to dump excess pressure from a combustion chamber (31) to atmosphere (41). Briggs teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 50 – 60, “For safety, a pressure relief valve 39 has been provided in a conduit 40 to relieve any excess pressures, generated within the combustion chamber during the establishment of combustion therein, to exhaust pipe 41 through which the spent gases are vented from the starter motor to the atmosphere”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, with the over pressure valve configured to dump excess pressure from the combustion chamber to atmosphere, taught by Briggs, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising: an air compressor system, a hydrogen fuel source, a fuel cell having an outlet, a combustion chamber, and over pressure valve configured to dump excess pressure from the combustion chamber to atmosphere, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the over pressure valve into the combustion chamber would have facilitate preventing the very high temperature combustion gases from damaging the fuel cell by dumping excess pressure from the combustion chamber to atmosphere thereby preventing the very high temperature and very high pressure combustion gases from the combustion chamber flowing backward into the fuel cell, i.e., blowback, which was not designed for such high temperatures and high pressure combustion gases. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Silberhorn et al. (DE102019216905A1, cited in 01/29/2025 IDS) in view of Immendoerfer et al. (10,174,669) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hauer (6,534,209).
Re Claim 8, Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, teaches the invention as claimed; except, further including a flapper valve on an outlet of the fuel cell configured to prevent combustion gasses or over pressure blow back to the fuel cell.
Hauer teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 2, ll. 40 – 55, a fuel cell (1, 2, 3) having a flapper valve (9 and 9’) on an outlet (8 and 8’, respectively) of the fuel cell (2, 3 and 2, 3’, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, with the flapper valve on an outlet of the fuel cell, taught by Hauer, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising: an air compressor system, a hydrogen fuel source, a fuel cell having an outlet, and the flapper valve on the outlet of the fuel cell, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the flapper valve on an outlet of the fuel cell would have facilitated preventing combustion gasses or over pressure blow back to the fuel cell when said flapper valve was closed while facilitating the flow of exhaust gases from the fuel cell and into the combustion chamber when said flapper valve was opened. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Silberhorn et al. (DE102019216905A1, cited in 01/29/2025 IDS) in view of Immendoerfer et al. (10,174,669) in view of Reindl et al. (6,852,434).
Regarding Claim 9, Silberhorn teaches, in sole figure, the invention as claimed including an integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising: an air compressor system (4); a hydrogen fuel source (Machine Translation Para. [0019] teaches “a separately carried hydrogen tank”); a fuel cell (7); an elongated shaft (2) connected to the air compressor system (4) and/or a propulsor (10); a motor assembly (Machine Translation Para. [0013] teaches “…it is provided that it has at least one electric motor, wherein the fuel cell (7) is arranged in particular for its energy supply and/or wherein the electric motor is arranged for at least indirectly driving the shaft (2)”. Para. [0014] teaches “…the shaft can be driven exclusively by the combustion power of the gas turbines, exclusively by the electric motor with a throttled or completely switched off gas turbine, or by a combination of both of the aforementioned operating modes.”) disposed in electrical communication with the fuel cell (7); and a combustion chamber (6) including a turbine (5) downstream of the fuel cell (7) configured to burn or catalytically react unburned hydrogen gas in an exhaust stream (16, 17) of the fuel cell (7), to drive the turbine (5) to torque the elongated shaft (2), wherein the turbine (5) is [Examiner notes that the phrase “configured to engage the elongated shaft when rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Silberhorn can perform the function because Machine Translation Para. [0014] teaches “…the shaft can be driven exclusively by the combustion power of the gas turbines…”. Therefore, when the turbine was exclusively driving the elongated shaft said turbine would have been engaged to the elongated shaft and rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft. Claim 9 fails to recite specific structure for carrying out the recited functional limitation. And Applicant’s Claim 4 recites “wherein the turbine is fixedly connected to the elongated shaft” which is shown in Silberhorn’s sole figure.] configured to engage the elongated shaft (2) when rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft (2).
Alternatively, if one of ordinary skill in the art would not have realized that Silberhorn’s turbine was configured to engage the elongated shaft when rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft. Then Immendoerfer teaches, in Fig. 1, Col. 2, l. 55 to Col. 3, l. 2, and Col. 3, ll. 40 – 55, a similar turbine (3,15) that was configured to engage an elongated shaft (5) to drive compressor (2, 4) when rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft (5) by means of freewheel or overrunning clutch (13). Immendoerfer teaches, in Col. 2, l. 55 to Col. 3, l. 2, that “In particular, the freewheel clutch makes it possible for the compressor wheel to be driven by the electric machine independently of the turbine wheel. This reduces the load acting on the electric machine during electric drive. In particular, the freewheel clutch reduces the inertia load by approximately two-thirds, since only the compressor wheel must be accelerated, which is generally substantially lighter, but not the heavy or inert turbine wheel.” Immendoerfer teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 45 – 55, “Freewheel clutch 13 consequently makes it possible for compressor wheel 4 to overtake turbine wheel 15 or to be operated at a higher speed than turbine wheel 15. If compressor wheel 4 runs out or is driven by the electric machine, its movement is decoupled from that of turbine wheel 15, as a result of which the moment of inertia of turbine wheel 15 is also decoupled and as a result, a significantly increased angular acceleration of electric machine 11 is achievable”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Silberhorn, with the freewheel or overrunning clutch, taught by Immendoerfer, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising: an air compressor system, a hydrogen fuel source, a fuel cell, an elongated shaft connected to the air compressor system and a propulsor, an electric motor assembly, a combustion chamber including a turbine downstream of the fuel cell, and a freewheel or overrunning clutch, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating a freewheel/overrunning clutch between the turbine and the elongated shaft would have allowed the turbine to drive the air compressor system through the elongated shaft when said turbine was rotating at least as fast as the elongated shaft, but when the electric motor assembly rotated the air compressor system through the elongated shaft faster than said turbine the freewheel/overrunning clutch would have de-coupled said turbine to facilitate a significantly increased angular acceleration of the air compressor system by the electric motor assembly, Immendoerfer - Col. 3, ll. 45 – 55. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, as discussed above, is silent on further comprising hydrogen gas and/or oxygen gas sensors located between the fuel cell and the combustion chamber, configured to measure concentration of hydrogen and/or oxygen in the exhaust stream from the fuel cell.
Reindl teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 4, l. 55 to Col. 5, l. 35, a similar fuel cell (10, 11) having a hydrogen gas (14 - Col. 5, ll. 24 - 26) and/or oxygen gas (14 - Col. 5, ll. 33 - 36) sensors located downstream of the fuel cell and configured to measure concentration of hydrogen and/or oxygen in the exhaust stream (“exhaust passage” - Col. 5, ll. 25 - 30) from the fuel cell (10, 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, with the hydrogen gas and/or oxygen gas sensors located downstream of the fuel cell and configured to measure concentration of hydrogen and/or oxygen in the exhaust stream from the fuel cell, taught by Reindl, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising: an air compressor system, a hydrogen fuel source, a fuel cell, an elongated shaft connected to the air compressor system and a propulsor, an electric motor assembly, a combustion chamber including a turbine downstream of the fuel cell, and hydrogen gas and/or oxygen gas sensors located downstream of the fuel cell and configured to measure concentration of hydrogen and/or oxygen in the exhaust stream from the fuel cell, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating hydrogen gas and/or oxygen gas sensors in the fuel cell exhaust stream located between the fuel cell and the combustion chamber would have facilited measuring the concentrations of hydrogen and/or oxygen in the exhaust stream from the fuel cell to facilitate controlling the amount of reactants supplied to fuel cell stack, Reindl - Col. 4, ll. 65 - 67. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 10, Silberhorni.v., Reindl, or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer and Reindl, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, further comprising a controller disposed in electrical communication with at least one of the hydrogen and/or gas sensors, the air compressor system, the hydrogen fuel source, the fuel cell, the heat exchanger, or the motor assembly.
Reindl further teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 4, l. 55 to Col. 5, l. 35, a controller (16) disposed in electrical communication (solid lines from controller to other elements) with at least one of the hydrogen and/or gas sensors (14), an air compressor system (17, 18), the hydrogen fuel source (22, 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Silberhorni.v., Reindl, or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer and Reindl, with the controller disposed in electrical communication with at least one of the hydrogen and/or gas sensors, the air compressor system, the hydrogen fuel source, further taught by Reindl, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising: an air compressor system, a hydrogen fuel source, a fuel cell, an elongated shaft connected to the air compressor system and a propulsor, an electric motor assembly, a combustion chamber including a turbine downstream of the fuel cell, the hydrogen gas and/or oxygen gas sensors located downstream of the fuel cell and configured to measure concentration of hydrogen and/or oxygen in the exhaust stream from the fuel cell, and the controller disposed in electrical communication with at least one of the hydrogen and/or gas sensors, the air compressor system, the hydrogen fuel source, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the controller in electrical communication with the hydrogen gas sensors and/or oxygen gas sensors, the air compressor system, and the hydrogen fuel source (28 – fuel control valve) would have facilitated measuring the concentrations of hydrogen and/or oxygen in the exhaust stream from the fuel cell to facilitate controlling the amount of reactants supplied to fuel cell stack, Reindl - Col. 4, ll. 65 - 67. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Silberhorn et al. (DE102019216905A1, cited in 01/29/2025 IDS) in view of Immendoerfer et al. (10,174,669) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Miftakhov (2021/0151783A1) in view of Chapman (5,150,569).
Re Claim 12, Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, teaches the invention as claimed, and Silberhorn further teaches, in the sole figure, the turbine (5) was disposed concentrically about the elongated shaft (2). Silberhorn’s sole figure only symbolically showed the top half of the integrated hydrogen-electric engine; however, one of ordinary skill in the gas turbine art would have known that the elongated shaft (2) was concentric with the rotational axis of the integrated hydrogen-electric engine which meant that the bottom half of the integrated hydrogen-electric engine would have been a mirror image of the top half of the integrated hydrogen-electric engine. Immendoerfer further teaches, in Fig. 1, that the compressor (2, 5) and the turbine (3, 15) were disposed concentrically about the elongated shaft (5, 14).
Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, as discussed above, is silent on wherein the fuel cell is disposed concentrically about the elongated shaft.
Miftakhov teaches, in Fig. 1 and Paras. [0015] and [0032], a similar integrated hydrogen-electric engine (1) having a compressor (12b) and fuel cells (26) disposed concentrically about the elongated shaft (10).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, with the fuel cell disposed concentrically about the elongated shaft, taught by Miftakhov, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the at least one electric motor, the elongated shaft, the compressor, the fuel cell, the turbine, and the fuel cell disposed concentrically about the elongated shaft, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the concentric fuel cell arrangement, taught by Miftakhov, for the non-disclosed fuel cell arrangement of Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., concentrically arranging the fuel cell about the elongated shaft would have facilitated aligning the annular air inlet of the fuel cell with the annular air outlet of the compressor while similarly aligning the annular exhaust outlet of the fuel cell with the annular exhaust inlet of the combustion chamber. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Silberhorn, i.v., Miftakhov, or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer and Miftakhov, as discussed above, is silent on wherein the combustion chamber is disposed concentrically about the elongated shaft.
Chapman teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4, a similar gas turbine engine having a compressor (18), a combustion chamber (70 – Col. 2, ll. 30 – 35 “annular axial flow combustor”), and turbine (22) that were disposed concentrically about an elongated shaft (100).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify , i.v., Miftakhov, or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer and Miftakhov,, with the combustion chamber is disposed concentrically about the elongated shaft, taught by Chapman, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the at least one electric motor, the elongated shaft, the compressor, the fuel cell, the combustion chamber, the turbine, and the combustion chamber disposed concentrically about the elongated shaft, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the concentric fuel cell arrangement, taught by Miftakhov, for the non-disclosed fuel cell arrangement of Silberhorn or alternatively Silberhorn, i.v., Immendoerfer, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., concentrically arranging the annular combustion chamber about the elongated shaft would have facilitated aligning the annular air inlet of the combustion chamber with the annular air outlet of the fuel cell while similarly aligning the annular exhaust outlet of the combustion chamber with the annular exhaust inlet of the turbine. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Silberhorn et al. (DE102019216905A1, cited in 01/29/2025 IDS) in view of Briggs (2,643,511).
Regarding Claim 15, Silberhorn discloses, in sole figure, all the claimed limitations including a method for increasing efficiency of an integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising: an air compressor system (4); a hydrogen fuel source (Machine Translation Para. [0019] teaches “a separately carried hydrogen tank”); a fuel cell (7); an elongated shaft (2) connected to the air compressor system (4) and/or a propulsor (10); a motor assembly (Machine Translation Para. [0013] teaches “…it is provided that it has at least one electric motor, wherein the fuel cell (7) is arranged in particular for its energy supply and/or wherein the electric motor is arranged for at least indirectly driving the shaft (2)”. Para. [0014] teaches “…the shaft can be driven exclusively by the combustion power of the gas turbines, exclusively by the electric motor with a throttled or completely switched off gas turbine, or by a combination of both of the aforementioned operating modes.”) disposed in electrical communication with the fuel cell (7); comprising providing a combustion chamber (6) including a turbine (5) downstream of the fuel cell (7) configured to burn or catalytically react unburned hydrogen gas in an exhaust stream (16, 17) of the fuel cell (7), feeding the exhaust stream (16, 17) from the fuel cell (7) into the combustion chamber (6 – shown in the sole figure), igniting or catalytically burning the hydrogen gas, and directing products of combustion to spin the turbine (5), adding energy from the spinning turbine (5) to the shaft (2 - Para. [0014] teaches “…the shaft can be driven exclusively by the combustion power of the gas turbines”).
Silberhorn is silent on including the step of providing an over pressure relief valve in the combustion chamber to dump excess pressure to atmosphere to avoid blow back to the fuel cell.
Briggs teaches, in the sole figure and Col. 6, ll. 50 – 60, an over pressure relief valve (39 – “pressure relief valve”) configured to dump excess pressure from a combustion chamber (31) to atmosphere (41). Briggs teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 50 – 60, “For safety, a pressure relief valve 39 has been provided in a conduit 40 to relieve any excess pressures, generated within the combustion chamber during the establishment of combustion therein, to exhaust pipe 41 through which the spent gases are vented from the starter motor to the atmosphere”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Silberhorn, with the over pressure relief valve configured to dump excess pressure from the combustion chamber to atmosphere, taught by Briggs, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the integrated hydrogen-electric engine comprising: an air compressor system, a hydrogen fuel source, a fuel cell having an outlet, a combustion chamber, and the over pressure relief valve configured to dump excess pressure from the combustion chamber to atmosphere, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the over pressure relief valve into the combustion chamber would have facilitate preventing the very high temperature combustion gases from damaging the fuel cell by dumping excess pressure from the combustion chamber to atmosphere thereby preventing the very high temperature and very high pressure combustion gases from the combustion chamber flowing backward into the fuel cell, i.e., blowback, which was not designed for such high temperatures and high pressure combustion gases. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Silberhorn et al. (DE102019216905A1, cited in 01/29/2025 IDS) in view of Briggs (2,643,511) as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of D’Agostini et al. (2022/0268444A1).
Re Claim 17, Silberhorn, i.v., Briggs, teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Silberhorn further teaches, in the sole figure, wherein air (15) is injected into the exhaust stream (16, 17) from the fuel cell (7).
Silberhorn, i.v., Briggs, teach method for increasing efficiency of an integrated hydrogen-electric engine, i.e., base method, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Silberhorn, i.v., Briggs, as discussed above, is silent on said air injected into the exhaust stream being to add a stoichiometrically excess amount of oxygen to hydrogen in the exhaust stream.
D’Agostini teaches, in Figs. 1 – 14, Para. [0007], and Para. [0070], a similar gas turbine where a stoichiometrically excess amount of oxygen to hydrogen (known in the art as “lean” fuel to air mixture) was used to produce lean combustion which helped to reduce nitrous oxide (NOx) formation, which results in a more environmentally friendly exhaust to be output from the gas turbine system. D’Agostini teaches, in Para. [0007], “It is desirable for environmental reasons to run a gas turbine system so that its combustors or combustor section operate using lean combustion. The use of lean combustion can refer to a condition in which there is excess air, or oxygen, for combustion relative to the fuel fed to the combustion chamber for combustion”.
Thus, improving a particular method (for increasing efficiency of an integrated hydrogen-electric engine), based upon the teachings of such improvement in D’Agostini, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the method for increasing efficiency of an integrated hydrogen-electric engine of Silberhorn, i.v., Briggs, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that injecting an excess amount of air into the exhaust stream of the fuel cell would have produced a “lean” fuel/air mixture, i.e., a stoichiometrically excess amount of oxygen to hydrogen, to facilitate lean combustion inside the combustion chamber which would have resulted in a more environmentally friendly exhaust to be output from the gas turbine system by reducing the formation of nitrous oxide (NOx). KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Silberhorn et al. (DE102019216905A1, cited in 01/29/2025 IDS) in view of Briggs (2,643,511) as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Hauer (6,534,209).
Re Claim 18, Silberhorn, i.v., Briggs, teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above; except, including the step of providing a flapper valve on an outlet of the fuel cell configured to prevent combustion gasses or over pressure blow back to the fuel cell.
Hauer teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 2, ll. 40 – 55, a fuel cell (1, 2, 3) having a flapper valve (9 and 9’) on an outlet (8 and 8’, respectively) of the fuel cell (2, 3 and 2, 3’, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Silberhorn, i.v., Briggs, with the step of providing a flapper valve on an outlet of the fuel cell, taught by Hauer, because all the claimed elements, i