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 correspondence received on 1/9/2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/5/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, and dependent claims 2-4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein when given the instruction by the stop device, the control unit permits the stopping of the generation of electricity only if a predetermined amount of the load is applied to the leg part, and ignores the instruction but maintains the generation of electricity by the fuel cell if the predetermined amount of load is not applied to the leg part, both during flight and landing”. This is considered new matter. The specification, including [0007] and Fig. 6, does not appear to support the positive recitation of “both during flight and landing”. Since the Applicant provides no basis for support in the specification, and the Examiner finds none, a prima facie case for new matter has been made.
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 1, and dependent claims 2-4, 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.
Claim 1: recites the limitation “wherein when given the instruction by the stop device, the control unit permits the stopping of the generation of electricity only if a predetermined amount of the load is applied to the leg part, and ignores the instruction but maintains the generation of electricity by the fuel cell if the predetermined amount of load is not applied to the leg part, both during flight and landing”. It is unclear if the limitation “both during flight and landing” requires the predetermined amount of load to NOT be applied during flight AND also during landing, or if the condition is met by the absence of load either during flight or when landed (in other words, will the limitation be met if load is not applied during flight, but is applied after landing?), or something else.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George 20200172236 in view of, ROH 20200361623, Olson 20160318620, and Shiokawa 20160380294.
Regarding claim 1, George teaches:
A flight vehicle (Aerial Vehicle, Title) including a fuel cell (hydrogen fuel cell [0014]) and a propeller (110, 108), the propeller to be driven by electric power generated by the fuel cell ([0014]), the flight vehicle comprising:
the generation of electricity by the fuel cell (the disclosed UAV could use exclusively hydrogen fuel cell [0014]);
a control unit (inter alia, “controller using embedded software that configures the UAV and adjusts its operations depending on conditions and parameters it receives for the desired flight” [0010])
a leg part grounding when the flight vehicle lands, to support a load of the flight vehicle (landing gear [0094]);
and a sensor (load sensors such as load cells [0094]) detecting the load applied to the leg part (in order to determine the weight of the cargo [0094]),
only if a predetermined amount of the load is applied to the leg part (mounted on the landing gear in order to determine the weight of the cargo. A load cell is a type of force gauge, comprising a transducer that generates an electrical signal whose magnitude is directly proportional to the force being measured. [0094]),
George teaches the fuel cell and controller as discussed above, but is silent about stopping the generation of electricity by the fuel cell as claimed.
However, ROH teaches a fuel cell power pack for drone (title) and :
a stop (inter alia, 112, Fig. 1, 4 [0012]) device giving an instruction to stop the generation of electricity by the fuel cell (“the fuel cell stack module may include a plurality of fuel cell stacks which are electrically connected to each other, and the power pack controller may turn on or off each of the plurality of fuel cell stacks according to the detected state information of the state information detector” [0012])
processing stopping of the generation of electricity by the fuel cell (power pack controller 113 may sequentially turn off the remaining fuel cell stack modules 111 other than one fuel cell stack module 111 as the amount of power required [0082], [0012]);
wherein when given the instruction by the stop device, the control unit permits the stopping of the generation of electricity (“the power pack controller 113 may sequentially turn off the remaining fuel cell stack modules 111 other than one fuel cell stack module 111 as the amount of power required by the load decreases while the drone main body 120 starts to end the flight” [0082] – it is noted the end of the flight taught by ROH would indicate the vehicle is on the ground).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide George with ROH's structure discussed above so that “the power pack controller to turn off the remaining fuel cell stack modules as the amount of power required by the load decreases while the drone ends the flight, as taught by ROH [0082].
George in view of ROH teaches the sensor detecting the load applied to the leg part and stopping the generation of electricity by the fuel cell when on the ground (i.e., load is applied to the leg), as discussed above, but is silent about ignores the instruction but maintains the generation of electricity by the fuel cell if the predetermined amount of the load is not applied to the leg part, both during flight and landing as claimed.
However, Olson teaches an aircraft an with an interlock system (title, abstract), and a “ Weight-On-Wheels (WOW) [0034] and an interlock for the fuel system [0031] and
[the system] ignores the instruction but maintains the generation of electricity by the fuel cell if the predetermined amount of the load is not applied to the leg part (inter alia, (e.g., when the landing gear struts are not compress beyond the threshold) [0045]), both during flight and landing (“ Weight-On-Wheels (WOW) relay 316 is a switch that connects and disconnects the circuit based on the signals from the WOW sensor 102. In an embodiment, when the WOW sensor 102 detects whether the aircraft is on the ground (e.g., when the landing gear struts are compressed beyond a particular threshold), the signal may cause the WOW relay 316 to connect to a terminal (e.g., “On-Gnd” terminal as shown in FIG. 3A, indicating the aircraft is on the ground), which disconnects the interlock solenoid 308 from the power source 312. Since the interlock solenoid 308 has no power, interlock solenoid 308 is not energized, which allows the pilot to move the lever 302 to shut off the engine. In another embodiment, when the WOW sensor 102 detects whether the aircraft is in the air (e.g., when the landing gear struts are not compress beyond the threshold), the signal may cause the WOW relay 316 to connect to the other terminal (e.g., “Air” terminal as shown in FIG. 3A, indicating the aircraft is in the air)”[0045], teaching a system designed to ignore signals, i.e. pilot inputs in this case, when WOW conditions are not met to indicate the aircraft being on the ground or not);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide George in view of ROH with Olson's structure discussed above in order to prevent the ”inadvertently shut off”, “thereby improving the safety of the airplane” [0031] by avoiding shutting a system down when the WOW do not indicate the aircraft is safely on the ground as taught by Olson [0045].
George in view of ROH and Olson teaches stopping the generation of electricity as discussed above but is silent about involving the air compressor or hydrogen pump, main valve and draining the water as claimed
However, Shiokawa a controller stopping fuel cell system (abstract), and:
wherein the control unit (controller 20) processes stopping of generation of electricity by the fuel cell (the controller completes an ordinary stop process [0009]) by transmitting a signal to a motor of an air compressor of the fuel cell or a motor of a hydrogen pump of the fuel cell, the signal causing the motor of the air compressor or the motor (In this cathode sealing process S102, the controller 20 stops the air compressor 32 [0044], see step S102 in Fig. 3) of the hydrogen pump to stop, only after (the controller 20 opens the pressure regulator 43 and drives the air compressor 32 to discharge water from the oxidizing gas pipe 31, the cathode-side flow paths formed inside of the fuel cell 10 and the cathode off-gas pipe 41 [0040], indicating that the air compressor is used in the water discharge process, and is therefore not off at this time; similarly, “The anode drainage process S104 is a process of discharging water from the fuel gas flow path 50. In this anode drainage process S104, the controller 20 drives the circulation pump 64 and the drainage valve 66 to discharge water from the fuel gas pipe 51” [0042]) water is drained from the fuel cell (a water drainage process that discharges water included in the fuel cell [0006], a water drainage process that discharges water from at least one of the fuel gas flow path and the oxidizing gas flow path [0009]), air and hydrogen pressure in the fuel cell are set and a main valve of a hydrogen supply tank is closed (“a cathode sealing process that seals the oxidizing gas flow path, and subsequently stops the fuel cell system” [0009], “In this cathode sealing process S102, the controller 20 stops the air compressor 32 and closes the pressure regulator 43, so as to suppress invasion of the air into the fuel cell 10 during suspension of the fuel cell system 100” [0044]; and “The on-off-valve 53 is closed at a stop of the fuel cell system 100” [0029] “the controller 20 serves to stop the fuel cell system 100 after completing an ordinary stop process including at least one of a water drainage process that discharges water from at least one of the fuel gas flow path 50 and the oxidizing gas flow path 30 and a cathode sealing process that seals the oxidizing gas flow path 30” [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide George in view of ROH and Olson with Shiokawa's structure discussed above so that the “ordinary stop process includes, for example, a water drainage process that discharges water included in the fuel cell and a cathode sealing process that suppresses invasion of the air into a cathode in order to suppress deterioration of a catalyst in the fuel cell” [0006].
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George 20200172236 in view of ROH 20200361623, Olson 20160318620, Shiokawa 20160380294 and Mastrianni 20170322069
Regarding claim 2, George in view of ROH, Olson and Shiokawa teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
As already discussed, George in view of ROH, Olson and Shiokawa teaches the control unit permits the stopping of the generation of electricity.
George in view of ROH, Olson and Shiokawa is silent about:
wherein a plurality of the sensors are disposed on the leg part, and
the control unit permits the stopping of the generation of electricity only if all the respective sensors detect that the predetermined amount of the load is applied.
However, Mastrianni further teaches and aircraft (title) with load sensors such as load cells may be mounted to the landing gear (abstract), and:
wherein a plurality of the sensors are disposed on the leg part (“conventional load sensors such as load cells may be mounted to the landing gear” [0094] and “an accurate WOW sensor 306 on each landing gear assembly 12” [0066]), and
[stopping generation of electricity] only if all the respective sensors detect that the predetermined amount of the load is applied (“Thus, improvements in determining when the aircraft 10 reaches the WOW transition point (WOW threshold) and measuring the weight (GW) of the aircraft 10 are made possible by the measurement system 100. The system 100 is further useful on aircraft 10 to be landed on a pitching and rolling deck of a ship or on a sloped ground, where one wheel 28 may touch before the others, so that not all three wheels 28 land at the same time. Having an accurate WOW sensor 306 on each landing gear assembly 12, as well as an effective measuring system 100 for correctly identifying the WOW of the aircraft 10 provides flight control with the information necessary to transition to the ground mode (or flight mode) when the WOW transition point is reached, as determined by the rate of change” [0066] – examiner notes that [0066] teaches the importance of accounting for inputs from the various sensors when determining the point of transition to ground mode)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide George in view of Olson, ROH and Shiokawa with Mastrianni's structure discussed above in order to accurately determine when the vehicle has transitioned to the ground mode, as taught by Mastrianni [0066].
Regarding claim 3, George in view of Olson, ROH and Shiokawa teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. As already discussed, George in view of ROH, Olson and Shiokawa teaches”
wherein the control unit performs the stopping of the generation of electricity (as already discussed for claim 1)
George in view of ROH, Olson and Shiokawa is silent about:
[wherein the control unit performs the stopping of the generation of electricity]) after confirming that the predetermined amount of the load is maintained for a predetermine time after each of the sensor(s) has detected that the predetermined amount of the load is applied.
However, Mastrianni further teaches and aircraft (title) with load sensors such as load cells may be mounted to the landing gear (abstract), and:
[wherein the control unit performs the stopping of the generation of electricity] (as already discussed for claim 1) after confirming that the predetermined amount of the load is maintained (“Thus, improvements in determining when the aircraft 10 reaches the WOW transition point (WOW threshold) and measuring the weight (GW) of the aircraft 10 are made possible by the measurement system 100. The system 100 is further useful on aircraft 10 to be landed on a pitching and rolling deck of a ship or on a sloped ground, where one wheel 28 may touch before the others, so that not all three wheels 28 land at the same time. Having an accurate WOW sensor 306 on each landing gear assembly 12, as well as an effective measuring system 100 for correctly identifying the WOW of the aircraft 10 provides flight control with the information necessary to transition to the ground mode (or flight mode) when the WOW transition point is reached, as determined by the rate of change” [0066] – examiner notes that [0066] teaches the importance of accounting for inputs from the various sensors when determining the point of transition to ground mode) for a predetermine time after each of the sensor(s) has detected that the predetermined amount of the load is applied (“The computing device calculates a rate of change of the strain over time to determine when the landing gear assembly reaches the weight on wheels threshold” (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide George in view of ROH, Olson and Shiokawa with Mastrianni's structure discussed above in order to accurately determine when the vehicle has transitioned to the ground mode, as taught by Mastrianni [0066].
Regarding claim 4, George in view of ROH, Olson, Shiokawa and Mastrianni, teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2. As already discussed, George in view of ROH, Olson, Shiokawa and Mastrianni teaches:
wherein the control unit performs the stopping of the generation of electricity (as already discussed for claim 1)
George in view of ROH, Olson, Shiokawa and Mastrianni, as discussed so far, is silent about:
[wherein the control unit performs the stopping of the generation of electricity]) after confirming that the predetermined amount of the load is maintained for a predetermine time after each of the sensor(s) has detected that the predetermined amount of the load is applied .
However, Mastrianni further teaches:
[wherein the control unit performs the stopping of the generation of electricity] (as already discussed for claim 1) after confirming that the predetermined amount of the load is maintained (“Thus, improvements in determining when the aircraft 10 reaches the WOW transition point (WOW threshold) and measuring the weight (GW) of the aircraft 10 are made possible by the measurement system 100. The system 100 is further useful on aircraft 10 to be landed on a pitching and rolling deck of a ship or on a sloped ground, where one wheel 28 may touch before the others, so that not all three wheels 28 land at the same time. Having an accurate WOW sensor 306 on each landing gear assembly 12, as well as an effective measuring system 100 for correctly identifying the WOW of the aircraft 10 provides flight control with the information necessary to transition to the ground mode (or flight mode) when the WOW transition point is reached, as determined by the rate of change” [0066] – examiner notes that [0066] teaches the importance of accounting for inputs from the various sensors when determining the point of transition to ground mode) for a predetermine time after each of the sensor(s) has detected that the predetermined amount of the load is applied (“The computing device calculates a rate of change of the strain over time to determine when the landing gear assembly reaches the weight on wheels threshold” (Abstract).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. However, to the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741