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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a recovery amount measurement unit” in claim 11; “a sensing unit” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: “a recovery amount measurement unit” in specification [0063]; “a sensing unit” in specification [0066].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 19 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites “a maximum extent” twice. It is unclear if the second recitation refers back to the first recitation, or the second recitation is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a maximum extent”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the second recitation of “a maximum extent” to mean “the maximum extent”.
Regarding claims 2-10, these claims depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 noted above.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, “the adjusted spray amount” lacks antecedent basis, therefore these claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the adjusted spray amount” to mean “an adjusted spray amount”.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites ‘the spray amount stored in the storing”. It is unclear what spray amount is stored during the storing because the parent claims do not recite storing a spray amount. Therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted this “the spray amount stored in the storing” to mean “a stored spray amount”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 11 recites “A fuel cell vehicle, comprising:
a fuel cell configured to generate power and to discharge condensed water as a by-product;
a radiator;
a cooling water recovery unit configured to recover cooling water not evaporated after being sprayed to the radiator;
a water tank configured to store the cooling water recovered in the cooling water recovery unit and the condensed water of the fuel cell;
a water pump configured to pump water stored in the water tank in response to a control signal;
a nozzle configured to spray water pumped from the water pump as the cooling water to the radiator;
a recovery amount measurement unit configured for measuring a recovery amount of the cooling water recovered in the cooling water recovery unit; and
a controller configured to generate the control signal in response to the measured recovery amount received from the recovery amount measurement unit to adjust a spray amount of the cooling water.”
The limitation of measuring a recovery amount of the cooling water, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a recovery amount measurement unit, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the recovery amount measurement unit measuring a recovery amount of cooling water recovered in the cooling water recovery unit in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of looking at a tray and determining the amount of water in the tray in his mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of generating the control signal in response to the measured recovery amount received from the recovery amount measurement unit, as drafted, is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a controller, nothing in the claim precludes the generating from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a controller language, the claim encompasses the user thinking and making a decision in his mind to adjust the spray amount of cooling water in his mind. Thus, this limitation is also a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using a recovery amount measurement unit and a controller to perform measuring a recovery amount of the cooling water and generating a control signal. The recovery amount measurement unit and the controller in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic sensor and controller for performing generic computer functions of measuring and generating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a fuel cell, a radiator, a cooling water recovery unit, a water tank, a water pump, a nozzle, a recovery amount measurement unit, and a controller to perform generating power, cooling, storing water, spraying water, measuring the amount of water recovered, and generating a control signal, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 14 when analyzed as a whole, is held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce a sensing unit which amounts to a generic computer component. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 11.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device or physically adjusting a spray amount of the cooling water according to a recovery amount of the cooling water. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Also, please note claims 1-10 were not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims recite a practical application of adjusting the spray amount of cooling water according to the recovery amount of the cooling water. Claims 12-13 were not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims recite a particular machine. Claims 15-19 were not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims recite a practical application of adjusting the spray amount of cooling water according to the recovery amount of the cooling water.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koti (US 20220293972 A1) in view of Atsushi (JP 2007285686 A) and Hanks (US 20220034525 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koti discloses a method of cooling a fuel cell vehicle by spraying condensed water, generated as a by-product from a fuel cell, as cooling water to a radiator, the method comprising (Abstract, Paragraphs 0011-0013, 0091-0092);
spraying the cooling water to the radiator (Paragraph 0025, 0081; “a nozzle or a mister 380 in the gap 350 may be used to channel water 140 from the exhaust to the radiator 160 by creating a water mist”);
by a controller (Paragraphs 0128-0131, Fig. 18);
upon the controller’s determining that the cooling water does not cool the radiator to a maximum extent (Paragraphs 0128-0131; “The output from the evaporative cooling benefit calculation 1810 may control a sump overflow where the water output from the fuel cell system is collected. The output from the evaporative cooling benefit calculation may provide input to the valves that control the pump connected to the sump or to the exhaust water pump 1840”).
Koti does not specifically state storing a spray amount of the cooling water upon the controller’s determining that the cooling water cools the radiator to a maximum extent.
However, Atsushi teaches storing a spray amount of the cooling water upon the controller’s determining that the cooling water cools the radiator to a maximum extent (Page 13 Paragraph 6 – Page 14 Paragraph 1, Page 16 Paragraph 4 – Page 17 Paragraph 1; “The spray condition table 70 includes information on spray conditions that do not cause a problem in the cooling operation by the air conditioner3 even when the spray operation is performed, and sprays that can maximize the cooling capacity of the air conditioner 3 under such spray conditions” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koti with storing a spray amount that has maximum cooling of Atsushi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that by adjusting the amount of cooling water sprayed onto a radiator, the cooling can be improved. Optimal spraying also reduces the amount of power needed to cool the radiator. One would have been motivated to combine Koti with Atsushi as this achieves reduced energy consumption. As stated in Atsushi, “the spray condition table70 is information calculated in advance so that the power charge can be reduced theoretically or experimentally” (Page 13 Paragraph 6 – Page 14 Paragraph 1).
Koti does not specifically state adjusting, by the controller, the spray amount of the cooling water according to a recovery amount of the cooling water sprayed to the radiator.
However, Hanks teaches adjusting, by the controller, the spray amount of the cooling water according to a recovery amount of the cooling water sprayed to the radiator (Paragraphs 0059-0060; “Moisture sensors 60 may also detect humidity and/or wastewater droplets and signal the reduction of water flow”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koti with adjusting the spray amount based on the recovery amount of cooling water of Hanks with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that optimum cooling on a radiator can be achieved by adjusting the spraying amount of cooling water. This reduces the energy required to cool the radiator and minimizes wasted water. One would have been motivated to combine Koti with Hanks as this improves the efficiency of the cooling system. As stated in Hanks, “by adjusting the flow at the flow reducer 32 and/or the water pump 47 so that optimum cooling can be achieved with optimum filtration and a minimum use of energy, all while inhibiting or eliminating water waste” (Paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 2, Koti discloses a fuel cell vehicle and spraying cooling water on the radiator.
Koti does not specifically state in the spraying, an amount in which the cooling water is sprayed is an initially set spray amount.
However, Atsushi teaches in the spraying, an amount in which the cooling water is sprayed is an initially set spray amount (Page 13 Paragraph 6 – Page 14 Paragraph 1, Page 16 Paragraph 4 – Page 17 Paragraph 1; “in this spray condition table, information on the spray conditions for performing the spray operation, and spray pattern information defined by the spray amount and spray time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koti with spraying an amount of cooling water initially set of Atsushi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that by spraying set amounts of cooling water previously determined to be optimal, the cooling can be improved. Optimal spraying also reduces the amount of power needed to cool the radiator. One would have been motivated to combine Koti with Atsushi as this achieves reduces energy consumption. As stated in Atsushi, “the spray condition table70 is information calculated in advance so that the power charge can be reduced theoretically or experimentally” (Page 13 Paragraph 6 – Page 14 Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 6, Koti discloses of the fuel cell vehicle (Paragraphs 0124-0131);
by the controller (Paragraphs 0128-0131, Fig. 18).
Koti does not specifically state in the storing, the spray amount of the cooling water is stored together with a state of the air conditioner.
However, Atsushi teaches in the storing, the spray amount of the cooling water is stored together with a state of the air conditioner (Page 13 Paragraph 6 – Page 14 Paragraph 1, Page 16 Paragraph 4 – Page 17 Paragraph 1; “the spray amount and spray time that can maximize the cooling capacity of the air conditioner 103 under such spray conditions, Are stored in association with each other… These conditions are defined by combining various environmental conditions for the surrounding environment in which the air conditioner 103 is installed and various internal conditions for the internal state of the air conditioner103”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koti with storing a spray amount and state of the air conditioner of Atsushi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that optimal cooling of a radiator can be achieved based on inputs from the spray amount of cooling water and various vehicle states. These inputs can be stored in a table and used for optimal cooling later on to reduce power consumption. One would have been motivated to combine Koti with Atsushi as this reduces power consumption. As stated in Atsushi, “the information regarding the spray conditions and the spray pattern stored in the spray condition table70 is information calculated in advance so that the power charge can be reduced theoretically or experimentally” (Page 13 Paragraph 6 – Page 14 Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 10, Koti discloses a spray amount.
Koti does not specifically state the adjusting includes increasing the spray amount in response that the adjusted spray amount is smaller than the spray amount stored in the storing.
However, Atsushi teaches the adjusting includes increasing the spray amount in response that the adjusted spray amount is smaller than the spray amount stored in the storing (Page 13 Paragraph 6 – Page 14 Paragraph 2, Page 16 Paragraph 4 – Page 17 Paragraph 2; “information on the spray conditions for performing the spray operation, and spray pattern information defined by the spray amount and spray time that can maximize the cooling capacity of the air conditioner 103 under such spray conditions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koti with increasing the spray amount when the spray amount is smaller than the spray amount stored of Atsushi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the spray amount can be adjusted based on a table to optimize cooling and improve energy efficiency. One would have been motivated to combine Koti with Atsushi as this reduces energy consumption. As stated in Atsushi, “the spray conditions and the spray pattern stored in the spray condition table70 is information calculated in advance so that the power charge can be reduced theoretically or experimentally” (Page 13 Paragraph 6 – Page 14 Paragraph 2).
Claims 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koti (US 20220293972 A1) in view of Sakaray (US 20240347742 A1) and Hanks (US 20220034525 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Koti discloses a fuel cell vehicle, comprising (Paragraphs 0060-0061);
a fuel cell configured to generate power and to discharge condensed water as a by-product (Abstract, Paragraphs 0011-0013, 0018, 0091-0092; “information about coolant temperature, radiator fan speed, fuel cell power, fuel cell coolant temperature target, sump water level, sump pump speed”);
a radiator (Paragraphs 0061-0064);
a water tank configured to store the cooling water recovered in the cooling water recovery unit and the condensed water of the fuel cell (Paragraphs 0096-0097; “excess water 140 generated as a byproduct during operation of a fuel cell circuit 1301 is collected in a stored water tank 1366”);
a water pump configured to pump water stored in the water tank in response to a control signal (Paragraph 0014, 0122-0123, 0130-0131; “the controller 1800 is able to determine water 140 storage in the sump 590, and usage of the pump 592, 1362, 1376 based on such determination”);
a nozzle configured to spray water pumped from the water pump as the cooling water to the radiator (Paragraphs 0081-0087; “a nozzle or a mister 380 in the gap 350 may be used to channel water 140 from the exhaust to the radiator 160 by creating a water mist”);
a recovery amount measurement unit configured for measuring a recovery amount of the cooling water recovered in the cooling water recovery unit (Paragraphs 0069, 0130; “sump water level”);
and a controller configured to (Paragraphs 0067, 0070, Fig. 18).
Koti does not specifically state a cooling water recovery unit configured to recover cooling water not evaporated after being sprayed to the radiator.
However, Sakaray teaches a cooling water recovery unit configured to recover cooling water not evaporated after being sprayed to the radiator (Paragraphs 0029-0030; “The condensate tray 116 may provide water to the tank 118. The tank 118 may be configured with a means for providing water to the spray supply system 114, such as, for example, the pump 120”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koti with a cooling water recovery unit of Sakaray with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that water sprayed onto the radiator will drip down. A tray and water tank can be placed underneath the radiator to capture this water and recirculate it back to the sprayer. One would have been motivated to combine Koti with Sakaray as this replenishes the supply of water. As stated in Sakaray, “the condensate tray 116 may be fluidly coupled with the water tank 118 and/or one another to provide condensate to the water tank 118 as a constantly replenishing supply of water for the cooling system” (Paragraph 0035).
Koti does not specifically state generate the control signal in response to the measured recovery amount received from the recovery amount measurement unit to adjust a spray amount of the cooling water.
However, Hanks teaches generate the control signal in response to the measured recovery amount received from the recovery amount measurement unit to adjust a spray amount of the cooling water (Paragraphs 0059-0060; “Moisture sensors 60 may also detect humidity and/or wastewater droplets and signal the reduction of water flow”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koti with generating a control signal to adjust the spray amount based on the recovery amount of cooling water of Hanks with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that optimum cooling on a radiator can be achieved by adjusting the spraying amount of cooling water. This reduces the energy required to cool the radiator and minimizes wasted water. One would have been motivated to combine Koti with Hanks as this improves the efficiency of the cooling system. As stated in Hanks, “by adjusting the flow at the flow reducer 32 and/or the water pump 47 so that optimum cooling can be achieved with optimum filtration and a minimum use of energy, all while inhibiting or eliminating water waste” (Paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 12, Koti discloses the fuel cell vehicle.
Koti does not specifically state wherein the cooling water recovery unit is disposed closer to a ground than the radiator; and wherein the water tank is disposed closer to the ground than the cooling water recovery unit.
However, Sakaray teaches wherein the cooling water recovery unit is disposed closer to a ground than the radiator (Paragraphs 0029, 0035, Fig. 1; “Condensate may condense on the vaporizers 102, 126 and my drip by the force of gravity to the condensate tray 116, where it is collected (e.g., in a pool by the force of gravity) and drains to the tank 118”);
and wherein the water tank is disposed closer to the ground than the cooling water recovery unit (Paragraphs 0029, 0035, Fig. 1; “Condensate may condense on the vaporizers 102, 126 and my drip by the force of gravity to the condensate tray 116, where it is collected (e.g., in a pool by the force of gravity) and drains to the tank 118”; the water tank is disposed closer to the ground based on the water draining to the tank).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koti with a cooling water recovery unit closer to the ground than the radiator, and a water tank closer to the ground than the cooling water recovery unit of Sakaray with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that gravity causes water sprayed onto the radiator to drip down into a tray and into the water tank. This allows water to be recovered and recirculated back to the sprayer. One would have been motivated to combine Koti with Sakaray as this allows for cooling water recovery. As stated in Sakaray, “water droplets to form and drop from the vaporizer 126 by the force of gravity. In the described system, these condensed droplets are recaptured by the fan mounting plate 104 and/or the condensate tray 116. The fan mounting plate 104 and/or the condensate tray 116 may be fluidly coupled with the water tank 118 and/or one another to provide condensate to the water tank 118 as a constantly replenishing supply of water for the cooling system” (Paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 14, Koti discloses a sensing unit configured to detect a state of the fuel cell vehicle including at least one of a vehicle speed or an outside air temperature (Paragraphs 0128-0131; “inputs from sensors 132 or other external sources to estimate the fuel cell liquid water 140. The inputs may include, but are not limited to, the ambient temperature”);
wherein the controller is configured to generate the control signal using a result of detecting by the sensing unit (Paragraphs 0128-0131, Fig. 18; “the controller 1800 may also include a fuel cell liquid water estimator 1820. The controller 1800 may have one or more inputs from sensors 132”).
Regarding claim 15, Koti discloses wherein the controller is configured for (Paragraphs 0128-0131, Fig. 18);
upon the controller’s determining that the cooling water does not cool the radiator to a maximum extent (Paragraphs 0128-0131; “The output from the evaporative cooling benefit calculation 1810 may control a sump overflow where the water output from the fuel cell system is collected. The output from the evaporative cooling benefit calculation may provide input to the valves that control the pump connected to the sump or to the exhaust water pump 1840”).
Koti does not specifically state adjusting the spray amount of the cooling water according to the recovery amount of the cooling water sprayed to the radiator.
However, Hanks teaches adjusting the spray amount of the cooling water according to the recovery amount of the cooling water sprayed to the radiator (Paragraphs 0059-0060; “Moisture sensors 60 may also detect humidity and/or wastewater droplets and signal the reduction of water flow””).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koti with adjusting the spray amount based on the recovery amount of cooling water of Hanks with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that optimum cooling on a radiator can be achieved by adjusting the spraying amount of cooling water. This reduces the energy required to cool the radiator and minimizes wasted water. One would have been motivated to combine Koti with Hanks as this improves the efficiency of the cooling system. As stated in Hanks, “by adjusting the flow at the flow reducer 32 and/or the water pump 47 so that optimum cooling can be achieved with optimum filtration and a minimum use of energy, all while inhibiting or eliminating water waste” (Paragraph 0060).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koti, Sakaray, and Hanks, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Joos (US 20030091880 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Koti discloses a fuel cell and a water tank.
Koti does not specifically state the water tank is disposed closer to a ground than the fuel cell.
However, Joos teaches the water tank is disposed closer to a ground than the fuel cell (Paragraph 0039; “The fuel cell 112 is located above the water storage tank 114”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koti with the water tank closer to the ground than the fuel cell of Joos with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when the fuel cell generates power, water is produced. Water is more dense than air and will want to drop due to gravity. A water tank underneath the fuel cell allows water to be stored without requiring extra energy of a pump. One would have been motivated to combine Koti with Joos as this improves energy efficiency. As stated in Joos, “The anions formed at the cathode react with the protons that have crossed the membrane to form liquid water as the reaction by-product” (Paragraph 0002).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koti, Sakaray, and Hanks, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Atsushi (JP 2007285686 A).
Regarding claim 19, Koti discloses the fuel cell vehicle.
Koti does not specifically state wherein in the adjusting, the controller is configured for increasing the spray amount in response that the adjusted spray amount is smaller than the spray amount stored in the storing.
However, Atsushi teaches wherein in the adjusting, the controller is configured for increasing the spray amount in response that the adjusted spray amount is smaller than the spray amount stored in the storing (Page 13 Paragraph 6 – Page 14 Paragraph 2, Page 16 Paragraph 4 – Page 17 Paragraph 2; “information on the spray conditions for performing the spray operation, and spray pattern information defined by the spray amount and spray time that can maximize the cooling capacity of the air conditioner 103 under such spray conditions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koti with increasing the spray amount when the spray amount is smaller than the spray amount stored of Atsushi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the spray amount can be adjusted based on a table to optimize cooling and improve energy efficiency. One would have been motivated to combine Koti with Atsushi as this reduces energy consumption. As stated in Atsushi, “the spray conditions and the spray pattern stored in the spray condition table70 is information calculated in advance so that the power charge can be reduced theoretically or experimentally” (Page 13 Paragraph 6 – Page 14 Paragraph 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-18 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:
Dependent claim 3 recites:
“The method of claim 2, wherein the initially set spray amount is determined by the controller to be a minimum amount required to dissipate heat that has not been dissipated in an air-cooled manner in response that the fuel cell operates at maximum output”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Koti (US 20220293972 A1) discloses adjusting the spray amount based on the fuel cell power (Paragraphs 0128-0131).
Koti, however, does not specifically state the initially set spray amount is determined by the controller to be a minimum amount required to dissipate heat that has not been dissipated in an air-cooled manner in response that the fuel cell operates at maximum output.
Wang (CN 216928641 U) teaches a spraying amount which can allow for stable operation of the fuel cell at maximum power (Page 13 Paragraph 2).
Wang, however, does not specifically state an initially set spray amount is determined to be a minimum amount required to dissipate heat.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 3 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 3 recites allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claim 4 recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein, in the spraying, an amount in which the cooling water is sprayed is an amount stored after an initial stage”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Koti (US 20220293972 A1) discloses adjusting the spraying amount after an initial stage (Paragraphs 0124, 0127).
Koti, however, does not specifically state a stored amount for spraying.
Atsushi (JP 2007285686 A) teaches storing an initial spray amount (Page 13 Paragraph 6 – Page 14 Paragraph 1, Page 16 Paragraph 4 – Page 17 Paragraph 1).
Atsushi, however, does not specifically state an amount stored after an initial stage.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 4 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 4 is objected to.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claim 5 recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein, in the storing, in response that the cooling water is recovered and then not recovered or in response that the cooling water is not recovered and then recovered, a determination is made by the controller that the cooling water cools the radiator to the maximum extent”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Koti (US 20220293972 A1) discloses optimizing cooling of the radiator (Paragraph 0077, 0139).
Koti, however, does not specifically state in the storing, in response that the cooling water is recovered and then not recovered or in response that the cooling water is not recovered and then recovered, a determination is made by the controller that the cooling water cools the radiator to the maximum extent.
Hanks (US 20220034525 A1) teaches optimizing the amount of cooling water based on the wastewater droplets (Paragraphs 0059-0060).
Hanks, however, does not specifically state in the storing, in response that the cooling water is recovered and then not recovered or in response that the cooling water is not recovered and then recovered, a determination is made by the controller that the cooling water cools the radiator to the maximum extent.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 5 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 5 is objected to.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claim 7 recites (emphasis added):
“The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting includes reducing the spray amount of the cooling water in response that the cooling water is continuously recovered for a predetermined time period”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Koti (US 20220293972 A1) discloses adjusting the spray amount of cooling water based on the cooling water recovered (Paragraphs 0130-0131).
Koti, however, does not specifically state the adjusting includes reducing the spray amount of the cooling water in response that the cooling water is continuously recovered for a predetermined time period.
Hanks (US 20220034525 A1) teaches adjusting the spray amount based on the cooling water recovered (Paragraphs 0059-0060).
Hanks, however, does not specifically state the adjusting includes reducing the spray amount of the cooling water in response that the cooling water is continuously recovered for a predetermined time period.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 7 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 7 is objected to.
Claim 16 is objected to because this claim recites similar allowable subject matter found in claim 7.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claim 8 recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting includes increasing the spray amount of the cooling water in response that the cooling water is not continuously recovered for a predetermined time period”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Koti (US 20220293972 A1) discloses adjusting the spray amount of cooling water based on the cooling water recovered (Paragraphs 0130-0131).
Koti, however, does not specifically state the adjusting includes increasing the spray amount of the cooling water in response that the cooling water is not continuously recovered for a predetermined time period.
Hanks (US 20220034525 A1) teaches adjusting the spray amount based on the cooling water recovered (Paragraphs 0059-0060).
Hanks, however, does not specifically state the adjusting includes increasing the spray amount of the cooling water in response that the cooling water is not continuously recovered for a predetermined time period.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 8 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 8 is objected to.
Claim 17 is objected to because this claim recites similar allowable subject matter found in claim 8.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claim 9 recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein, in the adjusting, an adjustment amount of the spray amount at a current time point is less than an adjustment amount of the spray amount at a previous time point”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Koti (US 20220293972 A1) discloses adjusting the spray amount in real time (Paragraph 0124).
Koti, however, does not specifically state an adjustment amount of the spray amount at a current time point is less than an adjustment amount of the spray amount at a previous time point.
Hanks (US 20220034525 A1) teaches adjusting a spray amount (Paragraphs 0059-0060).
Hanks, however, does not specifically state an adjustment amount of the spray amount at a current time point is less than an adjustment amount of the spray amount at a previous time point.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 9 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 9 is objected to.
Claim 18 is objected to because this claim recites similar allowable subject matter found in claim 9.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/TODD MELTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669