The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 10/23/2025 has been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1-5, 8-10 have been amended, and claims 13-20 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending with claims 6-7 having been previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of Luecken’s fuel cells 2a and 2b being connected in series “is a clearly erroneous assertion” and asserts that Luecken’s fuel cells “are both shown and described…as being connected in a parallel electrical configuration.” (Remarks, pg.7). The examiner respectfully disagrees in that nowhere in Luecken is there an explicit statement that the fuel cells 2a and 2b are connected in a parallel configuration. Instead, Luecken, par [46], clearly states that “the switch point 11 is also provided which is coupled to a negative pole of the energy source 2a of the first output path 10a and which is coupled to a positive pole of the energy source 2b of the second output path 10b. The switch point is also coupled to an earth potential.” That is, the negative pole of one fuel cell (2a) is connected to the positive pole of a second fuel cell (2b), which one skilled in the art would clearly understand is a series connection. Moreover, the examiner notes that this negative-to-positive connection is the same as what is shown in applicant’s fig.2’s “serial interconnection” (16)
The applicant further argues that a “series” connection is defined as “an electrically conducting pathway comprising an electric circuit along which the whole current flows through each component” and that “the electrical current output from the fuel cell 2a does not flow through the fuel cell 2b in Luecken, nor does the electrical current output from the fuel cell 2b flow through the fuel cell 2a” (Remarks, pg.7, bridging paragraph). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant appears to impose a particular definition and particular functionality to “serial interconnection” or “series” connection that is not positively recited in the claim language as currently presented. That is, the claim does not require a current output from a fuel cell to flow through another fuel cell and vice versa and therefore applicant’s argument is directed to unclaimed subject matter. If Applicant can have a “serial interconnection” (16) by having fuel cells connected negative-positive with a ground in between, then so can Luecken’s fuel cells 2a, 2b which are also arranged negative to positive with a ground in between as discussed in par [46].
Applicant states the fuel cells each have respective output voltages 5a, 5b and that Luecken, par [42], teaches the “positive voltage has a value of between 250V DC to 280 V DC and the negative voltage has a value from -250V DC to -280 V DC” and that if the fuel cells were connected in series, “the positive voltage generated by the fuel cell 2a would be negated by the negative voltage generated by the fuel cell 2 resulting in a circuit voltage of about zero (0) volts.” (Remarks, pgs.8-9, bridging paragraph). Applicant then argues “this is clearly not the case in Luecken and, thus, it cannot reasonably be alleged that the fuel cells 2a, 2b are in a series interconnection.” (Remarks, pgs.8-9, bridging paragraph). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s published disclosure at par [0051] states “a minimum voltage of the first fuel cell unit 14a is, for example, -400V and a maximum voltage of the first fuel cell unit 14a is, for example, -250 V. A minimum voltage of the second fuel cell unit 14b is, for example, +250V and a maximum voltage of the second fuel cell unit 14b is, for example, +400V.” Following Applicant’s logic, if Applicant’s fuel cells 14a and 14b were connected in series (and the voltages of the fuel cells are additive), then the first fuel cell 14a’s voltage -400V would be negated by the second fuel cell 14b’s voltage +400V and therefore resulting in a zero (0) volt circuit, which is also not the case in applicant’s disclosure. The examiner believes that the rationale applied to Luecken is simply not being applied to applicant’s own disclosure. The examiner believes that Luecken’s fuel cells 2a, 2b are connected in series due to how Luecken, in par [46], discloses the negative of fuel cell 2a is connected to the positive pole of fuel cell 2b with a ground reference in between. This is exactly how applicant’s fig.2’s “serial interconnection” (16) is shown. Similarly, Luecken discloses a positive voltage between 250V to 280V and negative voltage from -250V to -280V and applicant’s disclosure discusses a positive voltage between +250V to +400V and a negative voltage between -250V to -400V. If Luecken’s fuel cells are not in series because they do not output 0V, the same should apply to applicant’s arrangement in which the fuel cells do not output 0V. Furthermore, with respect to Applicant’s “additive” argument, it appears that the applicant is adding voltage potentials in opposite directions starting in the middle (ground/11) and then saying the positive output would cancel out the negative output, which is incorrect. The measurement has to be in the same direction- from the bottom/b to the top/a or top to bottom and not from the middle out. In other words, measuring from the bottom-up, it is +250V (starting at -250V and going to 0 is a gain/positive of 250) and then the same is applied to 2a/5a it is +250V (start from 0 and going up to 250). This makes 500V (not zero).
Lastly, Luecken is using both fuel cells to power one load/user is additional evidence of a series connection. If they were in parallel, and net voltage difference was zero – then the load would not have any power. There would not be a voltage drop to induce any current flow through the load. A parallel connection would provide 5a/b to two different loads (that have a voltage drop from 5a/b to ground). Luecken’s connection of fuel cells (negative to positive, with ground in the middle) is clearly the same as applicant’s disclosure and, therefore, is a “serial interconnection”, as claimed.
Applicant is encouraged to further distinguish the claims over the prior art of record to further expedite prosecution.
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.
The term “essentially equal” in claims 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially equal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no basis for comparison to what is “essentially equal” and what is not “essentially equal” in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4, claim 12 depends on claim 11, claim 16 depends on claim 15, claim 20 depends on claim 19 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the claims they respectively depend on.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 13-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luecken et al. (2013/0134776 A1) in view of Burke (10,320,015 B1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Luecken (figs.3-5) teaches an electrical energy supply system (1) for mobile platforms, the electrical energy supply system comprising:
an electrical arrangement having at least two fuel cells (2a, 2b), which are in a serial interconnection in relation to one another in the electrical arrangement (see for e.g., fig.4, par [46]; fuel cells 2a and 2b are connected in a “serial interconnection” because the negative pole of fuel cell 2a is connected to the positive pole of fuel cell 2b with ground in between, which is the same as applicant’s fig.2 serial interconnection 16) and are configured to provide an electrical voltage to supply at least one consumer (pars [6, 43, 53] and related discussion; Fuel cells 2a and 2b are “configured to”/capable of providing an electrical voltage to supply at least one consumer at the output noting that the at least one consumer is not positively recited/claimed);
a ground (see fig.4, par [46]; ground coupled to 11), which is assigned an electrical reference potential (fig.4, par [46]); and
at least two controllers (at least 9a, 14a collectively forms a first controller and 9b and 14b collectively forms a second controller), each of which is assigned to at least one fuel cell of the two at least two fuel cells (see fig.4, par [48] and related discussion; 9a and 14a assigned to fuel cell 2a and 9b, 14b assigned to fuel cell 2b), wherein each of the at least two controllers is configured to detect an electrical voltage of the at least one fuel cell to which the controller is assigned (pars [46-48]; each controller 9a, 14a and controller 9b, 14b detects the voltage of an assigned respective fuel cell 2a, 2b).
Luecken teaches detecting the voltage of each fuel cell 2a, 2b by each respective voltage sensor 14a, 14b of each respective controller, which provides a numerical potential. It is obvious that the reference potential of the voltage sensor is ground (i.e., zero), because Luecken does not state any other reference point. Further, it is commonly understood in the art that all potentials are relative to ground (reference potential) unless stated otherwise. However, Luecken does not explicitly state the detected electrical voltage of an assigned fuel cell is in relation to the reference potential/ground. In order to further expedite prosecution, Burke is being relied upon to further illustrate this.
Burke teaches it is known in the art to detect an electrical voltage of the fuel cell in relation to the reference potential/ground (Col.3, lines 29-33; ground 210 is a reference potential from which fuel cell voltages can be measured). Examiner Note: Burke is only being relied upon for the detection of the fuel cell voltage in Luecken being clearly in relation to the reference potential/ground- not for how the fuel cells are connected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Luecken to that of Burke. The motivation would been to fill in the gaps in Luecken and further illustrate how the Luecken voltage potentials for each fuel cell is expressed. The numerical voltage potentials produced by the voltage sensors have a reference potential and selecting that reference potential to be ground is an obvious design choice and well-within the level of ordinary skill in the art as taught within Burke.
Examiner Note: The recitation of “in relation to the reference potential” is not a structural limitation. The claim does not recite how the control units are connected.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the electrical energy supply system, in addition to the at least two fuel cells, does not comprise power
electronics to increase an electrical voltage provided by the at least two fuel cells (Luecken, fig.4, pars [36, 51, 53]; Luecken does not comprise power electronics to increase an electrical voltage provided by the fuel cell units 2a, 2b since the converters 3a and/or 3b are only intended to be used to reduce a high voltage from the fuel cell to a lower voltage).
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the at least two controllers are each configured to regulate the electrical voltage of the assigned fuel cells in relation to the reference potential (Luecken, pars [36, 42, 46, 48] and Burke, Col.3, lines 29-33; Modified Luecken teaches 9a and 9b of each respective control unit are each configured to regulate the voltage of the assigned fuel cell unit in relation to the reference potential by controlling switch 8a, 8b in which the output is directly coupled to the fuel cell or indirectly connecting the output to the fuel cell via the converter), so that respective electrical powers provided by the at least two fuel cells are essentially equal (Luecken, see fig.5, pars [42, 48, 50-51, 53] and Burke, Col.3, lines 17-21, 29-33; Modified Luecken teaches the fuel cells 2a, 2b provide “essentially” equal electrical powers. For e.g., fig.5 shows the operation region of the fuel cells 2a, 2b (Power=Voltage*Current)- The power provided by the fuel cells is “essentially” equal between the operating region 250V, 240A and 280V, 160A. Luecken teaches the fuel cells cover the same voltage range in par 42 (as opposed to other embodiments with different voltage ranges in par 44), which establishes the same operating point. Burke teaches it is known in the art for each fuel cell to have equivalent voltages. So, in Luecken both identical fuel cells 2A, 2B operating at 250V would produce 240A or 280V would produce 160A (or between the region 250V to 280V would produce equal currents)- V*I (of fuel cell 1) = V*I (of fuel cell 2)/would provide “essentially” equal powers. It is further noted that essentially equal refers to the magnitude of the voltages provided, and not necessarily the polarity).
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the at least two fuel cells are in a symmetrical interconnection in relation to the ground (Luecken, see fig.4, the fuel cells units 2a and 2b are in symmetrical interconnection in relation to the ground coupled to 11. Note: This is the same symmetrical interconnection configuration as shown in applicant’s fig.1 in which fuel cells 14a, 14b are symmetrical and have ground 20 coupled to a connection point between the first and second fuel cells), so that a first voltage difference between a first fuel cell of the at least two fuel cells and the reference potential is essentially equal to a second voltage difference between a second fuel cell of the at least two fuel cells and the reference potential (Luecken, figs.4-5, pars [42, 46, 48, 50-51] and Burke, Col.3, lines 17-22, 29-33; Luecken teaches the claimed structure/symmetrical interconnection in relation to ground that would produce the result of “so that” the voltage difference between the first fuel cell and the reference potential is “essentially equal” to the voltage difference between the second fuel cell and the reference potential. It is further noted that Burke teaches electric potentials/voltages of each fuel cell may be equivalent/essentially equal).
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 4 and further teaches wherein in the symmetrical interconnection, the reference potential is located on a positive voltage side of the first fuel cell (Luecken, 2b, par [46]) and on a negative voltage side of the second fuel cell (Luecken, 2a, par [46]).
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination teaches an aircraft (Luecken, pars [5-6], fig.3, claim 1) having the electrical energy supply system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 13,
Luecken (figs.3-5) teaches an electrical energy supply system (1) for mobile platforms, the electrical energy supply system comprising:
an electrical arrangement having at least two fuel cells (2a, 2b), which are electrically connected to each other in series in the electrical arrangement (see for e.g., fig.4, par [46]; fuel cells 2a and 2b are connected in series to each other, because the negative pole of fuel cell 2a is connected to the positive pole of fuel cell 2b with ground in between, which is the same as applicant’s design (16) in fig.2, which shows the negative pole of fuel cell 14b connected to the positive pole of fuel cell 14a with ground in between- this makes the fuel cells in Luecken connected in series to each other) and are configured to provide an electrical voltage to supply at least one consumer (pars [6, 43, 53] and related discussion; Fuel cells 2a and 2b are “configured to”/capable of providing an electrical voltage to supply at least one consumer at the output noting that the at least one consumer is not positively recited/claimed);
a ground (see fig.4, par [46]; ground coupled to 11), which is assigned an electrical reference potential (fig.4, par [46]); and
at least two controllers (at least 9a, 14a collectively forms a first controller and 9b and 14b collectively forms a second controller), each of which is assigned to at least one fuel cell of the two at least two fuel cells (see fig.4, par [48] and related discussion; 9a and 14a assigned to fuel cell 2a and 9b, 14b assigned to fuel cell 2b), wherein each of the at least two controllers is configured to detect an electrical voltage of the at least one fuel cell to which the controller is assigned (pars [46-48]; each controller 9a, 14a and controller 9b, 14b detects the voltage of an assigned respective fuel cell 2a, 2b).
Luecken teaches detecting the voltage of each fuel cell 2a, 2b by each respective voltage sensor 14a, 14b of each respective controller, which provides a numerical potential. It is obvious that the reference potential of the voltage sensor is ground (i.e., zero), because Luecken does not state any other reference point. Further, it is commonly understood in the art that all potentials are relative to ground (reference potential) unless stated otherwise. However, Luecken does not explicitly state the detected electrical voltage of an assigned fuel cell is in relation to the reference potential/ground. In order to further expedite prosecution, Burke is being relied upon to further illustrate this.
Burke teaches it is known in the art to detect an electrical voltage of the fuel cell in relation to the reference potential/ground (Col.3, lines 29-33; ground 210 is a reference potential from which fuel cell voltages can be measured). Examiner Note: Burke is only being relied upon for the detection of the fuel cell voltage in Luecken being clearly in relation to the reference potential/ground- not for how the fuel cells are connected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Luecken to that of Burke. The motivation would been to fill in the gaps in Luecken and further illustrate how the Luecken voltage potentials for each fuel cell is expressed. The numerical voltage potentials produced by the voltage sensors have a reference potential and selecting that reference potential to be ground is an obvious design choice and well-within the level of ordinary skill in the art as taught within Burke.
Examiner Note: The recitation of “in relation to the reference potential” is not a structural limitation. The claim does not recite how the control units are connected.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 13 and further teaches wherein the electrical energy supply system, in addition to the at least two fuel cells, does not comprise power
electronics to increase an electrical voltage provided by the at least two fuel cells (Luecken, fig.4, pars [36, 51, 53]; Luecken does not comprise power electronics to increase an electrical voltage provided by the fuel cell units 2a, 2b since the converters 3a and/or 3b are only intended to be used to reduce a high voltage from the fuel cell to a lower voltage) and/or (Note: the recitation of “and/or” means “and” or “or”, but not both. Examiner chooses “or”) the at least two controllers are each configured to regulate the electrical voltage of the assigned fuel cells in relation to the reference potential, so that respective electrical powers provided by the at least two fuel cells are essentially equal (limitation is written in the alternative and is not required to be read into the claim. However, the language is similar to that of claim 3 and would be rejected in the same fashion).
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 recites the same limitations as in claim 4 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 recites the same limitations as in claim 5 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination teaches an aircraft (Luecken, pars [5-6], fig.3, claim 13) having the electrical energy supply system of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13).
Claim(s) 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luecken et al. (2013/0134776 A1) in view of Burke (10,320,015 B1) in further view of Pearson (2003/0113594 A1).
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose further comprising an energy store, which is in a parallel interconnection with respect to the at least two fuel cells.
Pearson, however, teaches it is known in the art to further have an energy store (24), which is in a parallel interconnection with respect to the at least two fuel cells (pars [37, 40]; at least two fuel cells coupled in series within stack 14 and energy store 24 is in parallel with respect to the fuel cells of 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Pearson. The motivation would have been for the energy store to act as a buffer and provide additional/supplemental current to the load when the at least two fuel cell units produce less current than the load requires (i.e., when the demand exceeds the output of the at least two fuel cells).
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 13. The combination does not explicitly disclose further comprising an energy store, which is in a parallel interconnection with respect to the at least two fuel cells; and/or (Note: the recitation of “and/or” means “and” or “or”, but not both. Examiner chooses “or”) a circuit, which is in a parallel interconnection with respect to one fuel cell of the at least two fuel cells, to provide a current flow while bypassing the one fuel cell (i.e., written in the alternative).
Pearson, however, teaches it is known in the art to further have an energy store (24), which is in a parallel interconnection with respect to the at least two fuel cells (pars [37, 40]; at least two fuel cells coupled in series within stack 14 and energy store 24 is in parallel with respect to the fuel cells of 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Pearson. The motivation would have been for the energy store to act as a buffer and provide additional/supplemental current to the load when the at least two fuel cell units produce less current than the load requires (i.e., when the demand exceeds the output of the at least two fuel cells).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luecken et al. (2013/0134776 A1) in view of Burke (10,320,015 B1) in further view of Wangemann et al. (2015/0244277 A1).
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose further comprising a circuit, which is in a parallel interconnection with respect to one fuel cell of the at least two fuel cells, to provide a current flow while bypassing the one fuel cell.
Wangemann (fig.1), however, teaches it is known in the art to further have a have a circuit (8c or 8d), which is in parallel interconnection with respect to one fuel cell of the at least two fuel cells (see fig.1, pars [36-37]; for e.g., diode 8c is connected in parallel with respect to fuel cell 8a of the at least two fuel cells 8a, 8b), to provide a current flow while bypassing the fuel cell unit (pars [36-37]; the diode provides a current flow while bypassing the fuel cell if it is deactivated or fails).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Wangemann. The motivation would have been to bypass a malfunctioning and/or deactivated fuel cell and ensure the overall system continues functioning (Wangemann, pars [36-37]).
Claim(s) 11-12, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luecken et al. (2013/0134776 A1) in view of Burke (10,320,015 B1) in view of Pearson (2003/0113594 A1) in further view of Wangemann et al. (2015/0244277 A1).
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the electrical energy supply system, in addition to the at least two fuel cells, does not comprise power
electronics to increase an electrical voltage provided by the at least two fuel cells (Luecken, fig.4, pars [36, 51, 53]; Luecken does not comprise power electronics to increase an electrical voltage provided by the fuel cell units 2a, 2b since the converters 3a and/or 3b are only intended to be used to reduce a high voltage from the fuel cell to a lower voltage); the at least two controllers are each configured to regulate the electrical voltage of the assigned fuel cells in relation to the reference potential (Luecken, pars [36, 42, 46, 48] and Burke, Col.3, lines 29-33; Modified Luecken teaches 9a and 9b of each respective control unit are each configured to regulate the voltage of the assigned fuel cell unit in relation to the reference potential by controlling switch 8a, 8b in which the output is directly coupled to the fuel cell or indirectly connecting the output to the fuel cell via the converter), so that respective electrical powers provided by the at least two fuel cells are essentially equal (Luecken, see fig.5, pars [42, 48, 50-51, 53] and Burke, Col.3, lines 17-21, 29-33; Modified Luecken teaches the fuel cells 2a, 2b provide “essentially” equal electrical powers. For e.g., fig.5 shows the operation region of the fuel cells 2a, 2b (Power=Voltage*Current)- The power provided by the fuel cells is “essentially” equal between the operating region 250V, 240A and 280V, 160A. Luecken teaches the fuel cells cover the same voltage range in par 42 (as opposed to other embodiments with different voltage ranges in par 44), which establishes the same operating point. Burke teaches it is known in the art for each fuel cell to have equivalent voltages. So, in Luecken both identical fuel cells 2A, 2B operating at 250V would produce 240A or 280V would produce 160A (or between the region 250V to 280V would produce equal currents)- V*I (of fuel cell 1) = V*I (of fuel cell 2)/would provide “essentially” equal powers. It is further noted that essentially equal refers to the magnitude of the voltages provided, and not necessarily the polarity); the at least two fuel cells are in a symmetrical interconnection in relation to the ground (Luecken, see fig.4, the fuel cells units 2a and 2b are in symmetrical interconnection in relation to the ground coupled to 11. Note: This is the same symmetrical interconnection configuration as shown in applicant’s fig.1 in which fuel cells 14a, 14b are symmetrical and have ground 20 coupled to a connection point between the first and second fuel cells), so that a first voltage difference between a first fuel cell of the at least two fuel cells and the reference potential is essentially equal to a second voltage difference between a second fuel cell of the at least two fuel cells and the reference potential (Luecken, figs.4-5, pars [42, 46, 48, 50-51] and Burke, Col.3, lines 17-22, 29-33; Luecken teaches the claimed structure/symmetrical interconnection in relation to ground that would produce the result of “so that” the voltage difference between the first fuel cell and the reference potential is “essentially equal” to the voltage difference between the second fuel cell and the reference potential. It is further noted that Burke teaches electric potentials/voltages of each fuel cell may be equivalent/essentially equal); and wherein in the symmetrical interconnection, the reference potential is located on a positive voltage side of the first fuel cell (Luecken, 2b, par [46]) and on a negative voltage side of the second fuel cell (Luecken, 2a, par [46]).
The combination does not explicitly disclose further comprising an energy store, which is in a parallel interconnection with respect to the at least two fuel cells.
Pearson, however, teaches it is known in the art to further have an energy store (24), which is in a parallel interconnection with respect to the at least two fuel cells (pars [37, 40]; at least two fuel cells coupled in series within stack 14 and energy store 24 is in parallel with respect to the fuel cells of 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Pearson. The motivation would have been for the energy store to act as a buffer and provide additional/supplemental current to the load when the at least two fuel cell units produce less current than the load requires (i.e., when the demand exceeds the output of the at least two fuel cells).
The combination does not explicitly disclose further comprising a circuit, which is in a parallel interconnection with respect to one fuel cell of the at least two fuel cells, to provide a current flow while bypassing the one fuel cell.
Wangemann (fig.1), however, teaches it is known in the art to further have a circuit (8c or 8d), which is in parallel interconnection with respect to one fuel cell of the at least two fuel cells (see fig.1, pars [36-37]; for e.g., diode 8c is connected in parallel with respect to fuel cell 8a of the at least two fuel cells 8a, 8b), to provide a current flow while bypassing the fuel cell unit (pars [36-37]; the diode provides a current flow while bypassing the fuel cell if it is deactivated or fails).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Wangemann. The motivation would have been to bypass a malfunctioning and/or deactivated fuel cell and ensure the overall system continues functioning (Wangemann, pars [36-37]).
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination teaches an aircraft (Luecken, pars [5-6], fig.3, claim 1) having the electrical energy supply system of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11).
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 recites the same limitation as discussed above in the rejection of claim 11 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination teaches an aircraft (Luecken, pars [5-6], fig.3, claim 13) having the electrical energy supply system of claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19, which is the same as claim 11).
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 RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836