DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the above application filed on 07 January 2025. Claims 1-19 are examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figures 1-11 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “providing at least one of a clutch or a bypass valve for selective activation of the first compressor and first turbine or the second compressor and second turbine” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim 16. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 2-12:
The recitation “An aircraft propulsion system according to” (l. 1) is believed to be in error for – The aircraft propulsion system according to –.
Regarding Claim 1:
The recitation “a fuel cell of the fuel cell arrangement; and,” (l. 5) is believed to be in error for – the at least one fuel cell of the fuel cell arrangement; and [[,]] –.
The recitation “the system being arranged so that, in use, air from the air source flows in turn to the first compressor, the fuel cell arrangement and the first turbine.” (ll. 8-9) is believed to be in error for – the aircraft propulsion system being arranged so that, in use, the air from the air source flows in turn to the first compressor, the fuel cell arrangement, and the first turbine. –.
Regarding Claim 6:
The recitation “comprising at least one fuel cell, at least one fuel cell” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for – comprising at least one fuel cell, the at least one fuel cell –.
Regarding Claim 7:
The recitation “optimised” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for – optimized –.
Regarding Claim 13:
The recitation “passing the fuel cell output air to a first turbine for operating the turbine;” (l. 6) is believed to be in error for – passing output air from the fuel cell arrangement [[output air]] to a first turbine for operating the first turbine;” –.
The recitation “the compressor and turbine, wherein the compressor and turbine” (l. 7) is believed to be in error for – the first compressor and the first turbine, wherein the first compressor and the first turbine” –.
Regarding Claim 14:
The recitation “A method of generating propulsion for an aircraft according to” (l. 1) is believed to be in error for – The method of generating propulsion for the aircraft according to –.
Regarding Claim 15:
The recitation “and second turbine” (ll. 2-3) is believed to be in error for – and the second turbine –.
The recitation “providing air to the second compressor and second turbine” (l. 4) is believed to be in error for – providing the air to the second compressor and the second turbine –.
Regarding Claim 16:
The recitation “and first turbine or the second compressor and second turbine” (l. 3) is believed to be in error for – and the first turbine or the second compressor and the second turbine –.
Regarding Claim 17:
The recitation “passing air” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for – passing the air –.
Regarding Claim 18:
The recitation “providing air to the fuel cell arrangements, wherein the fuel cell arrangements are optimised” (ll. 3-4) is believed to be in error for – providing the air to the plurality of fuel cell arrangements, wherein the plurality of fuel cell arrangements are optimized –.
Regarding Claim 19:
The recitation “a fuel cell of the fuel cell arrangement;” (l. 6) is believed to be in error for – the at least one fuel cell of the fuel cell arrangement; –.
The recitation “the system being arranged so that, in use, air from the air source” (l. 9) is believed to be in error for – the APU being arranged so that, in use, the air from the air source –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikic 2022/0009379.
Regarding Claim 1, Mikic teaches aircraft propulsion system (hydrogen fuel system for an aircraft; Abstract, [0021]) comprising:
a fuel cell arrangement 314 comprising at least one fuel cell 314 ([0034-35]; Fig. 1);
an air source 301 (air into the air inlet 301 in [0032]; air into compression system leading into input into the fuel cell, in [0042]) for providing air (air) to the fuel cell arrangement 314 ([0032, 0042]; Figs. 1-2);
a compressor arrangement 303, 304, 305 comprising a first compressor 303 in fluid communication (air pathway, seen in Fig. 2) with the air source 301 and a fuel cell 314 of the fuel cell arrangement 314 ([0032; 0042]; Figs. 1-2);
and a turbine arrangement 318, 319, 320 (turbine 318 is mislabeled as 118 in Fig. 1) comprising a first turbine 320 mechanically coupled to the first compressor 303, the first turbine 320 is in fluid communication (seen in Fig. 1) with the at least one fuel cell 314 ([0035]; Figs. 1-2),
the system (hydrogen fuel system) being arranged so that, in use, air (air) from the air source (air into the air inlet 301 in [0032]; air into compression system leading into input into the fuel cell, in [0042]) flows in turn to the first compressor 303, the fuel cell arrangement 314 and the first turbine 320 (Figs. 1-2 and 4A. Fig.2 shows airpath into compressors and fuel cell, and Fig. 4A shows flow path from fuel cell through turbines and into exhaust path).
Regarding Claim 2, Mikic teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Mikic further teaches
an exhaust (marked path in Fig 4A) for releasing exhaust gases 370 from the aircraft propulsion system, the exhaust (marked path in Fig 4A) is in fluid communication with the first turbine 320 ([0008, 0033]; Fig. 4A).
Regarding Claim 3, Mikic teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Mikic further teaches
a first motor 330 or a first generator mechanically coupled to the first compressor 303 and the first turbine 320 ([0035]; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Mikic teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Mikic further teaches
the compressor arrangement 303, 304, 305 further comprises a second compressor 304, and
the turbine arrangement 318, 319, 320 further comprises a second turbine 319,
the second compressor 304 is mechanically coupled to the second turbine 319, and
the second compressor 304 is in fluid communication with the first compressor 303, and the second turbine 319 is in fluid communication with first turbine 320 ([0035]; Figs. 1-2 & 4A).
Regarding Claim 5, Mikic teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, and Mikic further teaches
a second motor 331 or a second generator mechanically coupled to the second compressor 304 and the second turbine 319 ([0035]; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Mikic teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, and Mikic further teaches
the compressor arrangement 303, 304, 305 further comprises a third compressor 305, and the turbine arrangement 318, 319, 320 further comprises a third turbine 318, the third compressor 305 is mechanically coupled to the third turbine 318 (318 is mislabeled as 118 in Fig. 1), and the third compressor 305 is in fluid communication with the first compressor 303 and the second compressor 304, and the third turbine 318 is in fluid communication with the first turbine 320 and the second turbine 319 ([0035]; Figs. 1-2 & 4A).
Regarding Claim 9, Mikic teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Mikic further teaches
the air source 301 (air into the air inlet 301 in [0032]; air into compression system leading into input into the fuel cell, in [0042]) is a source of at least one of ambient air (air at inlet 301 is inherently ambient before going through fan 302, seen in Fig. 1), an environment control system exhaust, and oxygen ([0032]; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Mikic teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Mikic further teaches
the mechanical coupling (coupling between compressor 303 and turbine 320, seen in Fig. 1) is provided by at least one shaft (shaft seen in Fig. 1 between compressor 303 and turbine 320) ([0035]; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Mikic teaches a method ([0020; 0060-62]; seen in Fig. 15) of generating propulsion (seen in Fig. 15) for an aircraft (for an aircraft), comprising:
passing air (air) from an air source 301 (air into the air inlet 301 in [0032]; air into compression system leading into input into the fuel cell, in [0042]) to a first compressor 303 ([0032, 0042]; Figs. 1-2);
compressing the air (method step 503) ([0032, 0042; 0060]; Figs. 1-2 & 15);
passing the compressed air (air … may be compressed) to a fuel cell arrangement 314 comprising at least one fuel cell 314 for generating energy (generated electricity, in methods steps 506-507; [0060]; Fig. 15);
passing the fuel cell output air (flow path from fuel cell through turbines and into exhaust path, seen in Fig. 4A) to a first turbine 320 for operating the turbine 320 (seen in Fig. 4A); and
operating the compressor 303 and turbine 320, the compressor 303 and turbine 320 are mechanically coupled (coupled via shaft and motor 330,seen in Fig. 1) ([0035]; Figs. 1-2 & 4A).
Regarding Claim 14, Mikic teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, and Mikic further teaches
operating a motor 330 or a generator mechanically coupled to the first compressor 303 and the first turbine 320 ([0035]; Fig. 1).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikic in view of Fukuda 2021/0143452.
Regarding Claim 11, Mikic teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Mikic does not teach at least one of a clutch, a gearbox, an air filter, or a bypass valve.
Fukuda teaches
at least one of a clutch, a gearbox, an air filter 240, or a bypass valve ([0027]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the air pathway (seen in Fig. 2) of Mikic to include Fukuda’s air filter 240 arranged before Mikic’s at least one fuel cell 314, in order to remove dust in the air (Fukuda [0027]).
Regarding Claim 17, Mikic teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13. However, Mikic does not teach controllably passing air from the air source to an air filter for filtering the air prior to passing the air to the fuel cell arrangement.
Fukuda teaches
controllably passing air (air) from the air source 210 to an air filter 240 for filtering the air prior to passing the air (via pipe 230) to the fuel cell arrangement 100 ([0022, 0027]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the air pathway (seen in Fig. 2) of Mikic to include an air filter 240 for filtering the air prior to passing the air (via pipe 230) to the fuel cell arrangement 100, as taught by Fukuda, for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 11 above.
While Mikic in view of Fukuda teaches an apparatus, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikic in view of Hagh 2017/0158343.
Regarding Claim 12, Mikic teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Mikic does not teach a control system for controlling selective activation of components within the aircraft propulsion system.
Hagh teaches
a control system (may include a control unit) for controlling selective activation of components within the aircraft propulsion system 100 ([0017; 0024]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the aircraft propulsion system (hydrogen fuel system for an aircraft) of Mikic with a control system (may include a control unit) for controlling selective activation of components within the aircraft propulsion system 100, as taught by Hagh, in order to provide full-time operation to avoid start-up and shutdown transients while providing simple controls and consistent power generation (Hagh [0024]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikic in view of Okada 2015/0183297.
Regarding Claim 15, Mikic teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, and Mikic further teaches
providing a second compressor 304 and a second turbine 319, the second compressor 304 and second turbine 319 are mechanically coupled (via shaft seen in Fig. 1, and motor 331); and providing air (air pathway seen in Fig. 2) to the second compressor 304 and second turbine 319 ([0032; 0035]; Figs. 1-2 & 4A).
Mikic does not teach selectively providing air to the second compressor and second turbine.
Okada teaches heat exchange system 500 with a control unit 11, a plurality of compressors 120 and a plurality of compressor clutches 121 provided in each respective compressor, and control unit 11 that controls which compressor 120 and compressor clutches 121 are used in order to drive engine 110 ([0122-124]; Fig. 1). Note, Okada’s control unit 11 and plurality of compressor clutches 121 is applied for its stated and intended use of transmitting the rotational drive from the engine to the compressor corresponding to the compressor clutch that is in the ON state, and not for its location in the prior art.
Mikic in view of Okada, as discussed so far, does not teach selectively providing air to the second compressor and second turbine.
However, Mikic in view of Okada teaches Mikic’s aircraft propulsion system comprising a fuel cell arrangement 314, an air source 301 for providing air (air) to the fuel cell arrangement 314, a compressor arrangement 303, 304, 305 comprising a first compressor 303 in fluid communication with the air source 301 and a fuel cell 314 of the fuel cell arrangement 314, a turbine arrangement 318, 319, 320 (comprising a first turbine 320 mechanically coupled to the first compressor 303, the first turbine 320 is in fluid communication with the at least one fuel cell 314, and Okada’s control unit 11 and plurality of compressor clutches 121 provided in each respective compressor of Mikic’s compressor arrangement 303, 304, 305. Therefore, Mikic in view of Okada’s control unit 11 with the plurality of compressor clutches 121 is capable of selectively providing air to Mikic’s second compressor 304 and second turbine 319, because it has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2114 II, and a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114 II. In this case, the applied prior art is identical to the claimed structure and is capable of operating as claimed and as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the aircraft propulsion system (hydrogen fuel system for an aircraft) of Mikic to include plurality of compressor clutches 121 in each respective compressor of the compressor arrangement 303, 304, 305 of Mikic, as taught by Okada, in order to “transmit the rotational drive from the engine 110 to the compressor 120 corresponding to the compressor clutch 121 that is brought into the ON state” (Okada [0124], ll. 7-11).
While Mikic in view of Okada teaches an apparatus, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Regarding Claim 16, Mikic teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13. However, Mikic does not teach providing at least one of a clutch or a bypass valve for selective activation of the first compressor and first turbine or the second compressor and second turbine.
Okada teaches heat exchange system 500 with a control unit 11, a plurality of compressors 120 and a plurality of compressor clutches 121 provided in each respective compressor, and control unit 11 that controls which compressor 120 and compressor clutches 121 are used in order to drive engine 110 ([0122-124]; Fig. 1). Note, Okada’s control unit 11 and plurality of compressor clutches 121 is applied for its stated and intended use of transmitting the rotational drive from the engine to the compressor corresponding to the compressor clutch that is in the ON state, and not for its location in the prior art.
Mikic in view of Okada, as discussed so far, does not teach providing at least one of a clutch or a bypass valve for selective activation of the first compressor and first turbine or the second compressor and second turbine.
However, Mikic in view of Okada teaches Mikic’s aircraft propulsion system comprising a fuel cell arrangement 314, an air source 301 for providing air (air) to the fuel cell arrangement 314, a compressor arrangement 303, 304, 305 comprising a first compressor 303 and a second compressor 304 in fluid communication with the air source 301 and a fuel cell 314 of the fuel cell arrangement 314, a turbine arrangement 318, 319, 320 (comprising a first turbine 320 mechanically coupled to the first compressor 303, the first turbine 320 and the second turbine 319 is in fluid communication with the at least one fuel cell 314, and Okada’s control unit 11 and plurality of compressor clutches 121 provided in each respective compressor of Mikic’s compressor arrangement 303, 304, 305. Therefore, Mikic in view of Okada’s control unit 11 with the plurality of compressor clutches 121 is capable of selectively providing air to Mikic’s first compressor 303 and first turbine 320 or the second compressor 304 and second turbine 319, because it has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2114 II, and a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114 II. In this case, the applied prior art is identical to the claimed structure and is capable of operating as claimed and as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the aircraft propulsion system (hydrogen fuel system for an aircraft) of Mikic to include plurality of compressor clutches 121 in each respective compressor of the compressor arrangement 303, 304, 305 of Mikic, as taught by Okada, for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 15 above.
While Mikic in view of Okada teaches an apparatus, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikic in view of Schaefer 2006/0234093.
Regarding Claim 18, Mikic teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 14. However, Mikic does not teach providing a plurality of fuel cell arrangements, selectively providing air to the fuel cell arrangements, the fuel cell arrangements are optimised for operation at different ambient pressures.
Schaefer teaches
providing a plurality of fuel cell arrangements 122, 124 (Fig. 4),
selectively providing air (via variable flow divider 170) to the fuel cell arrangements 122, 124 (Fig. 4),
the fuel cell arrangements 122, 124 are optimised for operation at different ambient pressures (inherent – from “Controller 146 controls operation of flow restricting devices 176, 178 in synchronization with divider 170 and flow restricting devices 142, 144 to selectively enable cathode effluent to flow from one fuel cell stack to the other at an appropriate time when a pressure differential is present.”) ([0032-33]; Fig. 4. Controller controlling flow through divider 170 into different fuel cells 122, 124 and then to flow restriction devices 142, 144 to a selective cathode when pressure differential is present inherently means that fuel cells 122, 124 operate at different pressures in order to have the pressure differential present for selecting the flow path.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel cell arrangement 314 of Mikic with Schaefer’s a plurality of fuel cell arrangements 122, 124, selectively providing air (via variable flow divider 170) to the fuel cell arrangements 122, 124, and the fuel cell arrangements 122, 124 being optimised for operation at different ambient pressures, in order to allow for “unused oxygen in the cathode effluent to be recycled and used to convert into electrical energy in the cathode side of the fuel cell stack into which it is routed.” (Schaefer [0033], ll. 17-21).
While Mikic in view of Schaefer teaches an apparatus, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halsey 2018/0141675 in view of Manabe 2015/0300262.
Regarding Claim 19, Halsey teaches an auxiliary power unit (APU) 20 for use in an aircraft 10, the APU 20 comprising ([0013]; Fig. 1):
a fuel cell arrangement 22 comprising at least one fuel cell 22 ([0016]; Fig. 2);
an air source 38 for providing air 70, 74, 60 to the fuel cell arrangement 22 ([0021, 0024]; Fig. 2);
a compressor arrangement 26 comprising a first compressor 26 in fluid communication (via flow path 70 [not shown in Fig. 2], and 74) with the air source 38 and a fuel cell 22 of the fuel cell arrangement 22 ([0021, 0024]; Fig. 2);
and a turbine arrangement 28 comprising a first turbine 28 mechanically coupled (via shaft 30) to the first compressor 26, the first turbine 28 is in fluid communication (via path 66, 51, seen in Fig. 2) with the at least one fuel cell 22,
the system 20 being arranged so that, in use, air 70, 74, 60 from the air source 38 flows in turn to the first compressor 26, the fuel cell arrangement 22 and the first turbine 28 ([0021, 0024]; Fig. 2).
Halsey does not teach the air source is selectable from a combination of ambient, environmental control system exhaust or oxygen.
Manabe teaches
the air source (oxidizing gas) is selectable from a combination of ambient, environmental control system exhaust or oxygen (air, or mixed gas of combustion exhaust gas and air, or mixed gas of oxygen and air) ([0029]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the air source 38 of Halsey with Manabe’s air source (oxidizing gas) that is selectable from a combination of ambient, environmental control system exhaust or oxygen (air, or mixed gas of combustion exhaust gas and air, or mixed gas of oxygen and air), because Manabe teaches that providing air, or mixed gas of combustion exhaust gas and air, or mixed gas of oxygen and air to a solid oxide fuel cell are well-known alternatives (Manabe [0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art of Mikic, Fukuda, Hagh, Okada, Schaefer, and Halsey does not teach or fairly suggest, either by itself or in combination with other prior art, and in combination with the other limitations of the dependent claim 6, the recitation “comprising a second fuel cell arrangement comprising at least one fuel cell, at least one fuel cell of the second fuel arrangement being in fluid communication with the second compressor and the second turbine.”
Closest prior art of Kaimer 2022/0149402 teaches (in [0025]; Fig. 1) two fuel cell arrangements with the first fuel cell arranged in fluid communication with a first compressor and first turbine, and the second fuel cell arranged in fluid communication with a second compressor and second turbine. The exit of airflow from the first turbine joins the air flow downstream of the second compressor and upstream of the second fuel cell. However, the modification of the system of Mikic with Kaimer would change the way Mikic’s system operates, and there is no motivation for the combination.
Therefore, prior art of Mikic, Fukuda, Hagh, Okada, Schaefer, Halsey, and Kaimer does not teach or fairly suggest, either by itself or in combination with other prior art, and in combination with the other limitations of the dependent claim 6, recited above.
Claim 7 is objected based on its dependency on claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACEK LISOWSKI whose telephone number is (408) 918-7635. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm PST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/JACEK LISOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights