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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the 7th line of new claim 21, it is believed that “across” should be added after “measured”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 and new claim 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US 2009/0136791), and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 2019/0260047), cited in the PTO-892 of the Office Action mailed May 21, 2025.
Regarding independent claim 1, Ogawa et al. disclose a fuel cell stack system (abstract; paragraphs [0034]-[0044]; and Figure 1), in which the fuel cell stack system (1) comprises a fuel cell stack (10) that includes the following structural features:
an anode (13) with an anode inlet and an anode outlet;
a cathode (14) with a cathode inlet and a cathode outlet; and
a proportional control valve (251) that is operable to control flow of fuel (hydrogen from hydrogen tank (22) through hydrogen supply channel (25)) into the anode (13) based on a pressure differential measured across the anode inlet and the anode outlet (see paragraph [0043]).
Ogawa et al. fail to teach a controller in combination with a control valve.
However, Miyamoto et al. disclose a fuel cell system and its method of control (abstract; paragraphs [0025]-[0036], [0041], [0042], and [0063]-[0065]; and Figures 1 and 9), in which the fuel cell system (10) includes a control unit (300) that is able to control operating points throughout the fuel cell system (10), including controlling at least a pressure adjusting valve (221) adjacent a fuel cell (100) based on data from a pressure sensor (214) – see paragraphs [0031]-[0036], [0064], and [0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a controller to connect with at least one control valve based on pressure sensor data, as taught by Miyamoto et al., into the fuel cell stack system disclosed by Ogawa et al., in order to control and maintain operating parameters throughout the fuel cell system (Miyamoto et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0036], [0064], and [0065]).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 7, 8, and new independent claim 21 that includes the limitations from the combination of claims 1, 2, and 7, and since the claims are drawn to an apparatus (fuel cell stack system (1) of Ogawa et al. having a signal pressure pipe (31) – not a pressure within the apparatus), the claimed pressure differential (as applied to applicants’ claims 2 and 3) in the combined teachings of Ogawa et al. and Miyamoto et al. can be measured at any point or desired location along the anode inlet, the anode outlet, the cathode inlet, and the cathode outlet, since Ogawa et al. have a plurality of valves and a controller (40), as shown in Figure 1 (see paragraphs [0038]-[0044] of Ogawa et al.).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, although the combined teachings of Ogawa et al. and Miyamoto et al. disclose and/or suggest the features of claims 1 and 2, including Ogawa et al. teaching calibration via the controller (40) of the proportional control valve (251), both Ogawa et al. and Miyamoto et al. fail to teach pressure sensors at an inlet and an outlet of the anode, as well as at an inlet and an outlet of the cathode. However, since Ogawa et al. disclose a gas pressure adjusting unit (43) of the controller (40), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there would be one or more additional pressure sensors, in order to more accurately determine differentials of pressures throughout the fuel cell stack system (see paragraphs [0038]-[0043]) of Ogawa et al.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include additional sensors at inlets and outlets of both the anode and the cathode, in order to obtain more accurate readings with calibrating adjustments for more efficient operation of the fuel cell stack system (Ogawa et al.; paragraphs [0038]-[0043]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, it would be conventional that the proportional control valve (251) of Ogawa et al. is operable in combination with an ejector having a nozzle, as well as a corresponding operation of a combination of the control unit (300) and the pressure adjusting valve (221) of Miyamoto et al. In this instance, the ejector is interpreted as an open source to send fuel to the fuel cell, in which the proportional control valve (251) of Ogawa et al. comprises a controller (40) that can be programmed to make corrections and to clear a choke within a nozzle of the ejector (see Figure 1 of Ogawa et al.; and Figure 1 of Miyamoto et al.).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, the apparatus disclosed and/or suggested by the combined teachings of Ogawa et al. and Miyamoto et al. can be set to make measurements at any point or desired location along the anode inlet, the anode outlet, the cathode inlet, and the cathode outlet, and also can be selectively set to obtain a combined standard error of less than about 25% of a target bias pressure, wherein the target bias pressure is based on operating conditions of the fuel cell stack (10). In addition, the controller (40) of the proportional control valve (251) of Ogawa et al. is operable to target the bias pressure based on calibration of measurements (Ogawa et al.; paragraphs [0038]-[0043]; and Figure 1; and paragraphs [0031]-[0036], [0064], and [0065]; and Figure 1 of Miyamoto et al.).
Regarding claims 10-13, the controller (40) of Ogawa et al. can be set to measure an outer control loop and an inner control loop with an open loop based on pressure downstream of the proportional control valve (251) to balance the fuel cell stack system (1) with respect to a target flow rate (see Figure 1 of Ogawa et al.). Regarding process steps that are to be carried out in the fuel cell system in the combined teachings of Ogawa et al. and Miyamoto et al., it is noted that these claims are rejected based on structural features of the apparatus, wherein the steps of performing operation of the apparatus have no patentable weight. In this instance, the fuel cell stack system is capable of performing the claimed function per MPEP 2114.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment received by the USPTO on April 27, 2026. Although the amendment overcomes the prior objections to claims 6 and 7, an objection to new claim 21 is raised in above section 1. Claims 14-20 remain withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention. The applicants have added new independent claim 21. Claims 1-13 and 21 are currently under consideration in the application.
Applicants' arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the applicants’ remarks/arguments on pages 6-8 of the amendment, the applicants argue (in the 1st and 2nd full paragraphs on page 7 of the REMARKS section) that Ogawa et al. only teach flow of air and not “any flow of the fuel”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner cited that the hydrogen tank (22) is controlled by a proportional control valve (251). Ogawa et al. disclose that the hydrogen tank (22) is a source of fuel that is controlled by the valve (251), but lack the disclosure of a controller “in combination with a control valve”. However, and as set forth in the 35 USC 103 rejection section above, a controller taught by Miyamoto et al. is operable to control and maintain operating parameters throughout the fuel cell system (Miyamoto et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0036], [0064], and [0065]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the controller of Miyamoto et al. into the fuel cell stack system disclosed by Ogawa et al., for the purpose of controlling and maintaining operating parameters. In view of the 35 USC 103 rejection and for these additional reasons, claims 1-13 and 21 are rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights