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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8-10, filed May 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, and 14-15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of "The Different Types of UPS Systems" (American Power Conversion Corp., EE Times, https://www.eetimes.com/the-different-types-of-ups-systems/, October 2004; hereinafter referred to as APC).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8-10, 12, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez (US A1) in view of Edlund et al. (US 2003/0113601 A1) and APC.
Regarding claim 1, Marquez teaches a power generation system comprising a hydrogen fuel cell (4), a DC-AC power converter to provide a constant level of AC electricity (6), an electric vehicle charger (220 VDC J1772 in Fig. 5), and a redundant auxiliary battery (7) in a regulated power supply system (Marquez Abstract, Claim 1, Figs. 1 and 5).
Marquez does not teach a DC-DC converter to step up or step down the output of the fuel cell, a voltage distributor, or that the battery is configured to supply power to the DC-AC converter and/or the EV charger. Edlund is directed to a fuel cell power system. Edlund teaches a fuel cell system comprising a step-up converter to step up the power from the fuel cell (43), a voltage distributor to distribute power from the converter (electrical power stream, wide arrows), a battery (battery bank 20) configured to supply power to the voltage distributor, and a controller (34) configured to maintain the voltage input of the load based on the output of the converter and the battery (Edlund Fig. 3 and [0038]). Edlund teaches that this system prevents damage to fuel cells and optimizes operation (Edlund [0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply the system of Edlund to the fuel cell charger of Marquez in order to prevent damage to fuel cells and optimize operation.
Edlund teaches that the battery is charged with the output of the fuel cell (Edlund [0034]) and that the output of the fuel cell is stepped up to the battery voltage (Edlund [0075]). The voltage of the battery is therefore necessarily higher than the voltage of the fuel cell.
Marquez does not teach that the system includes a domestic power charging switch or an electric vehicle charging switch. Edlund teaches that breakers 52 and 54 may be provided with contactors (i.e. switches) with two-way communication to allow for increased control of the system (Edlund [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add such switches to the system to allow for increased control.
Modified Marquez does not teach that the output of the voltage distributor is set to the voltage of the battery. Modified Marques does not teach any particular voltage distribution system for the battery backup system. APC is directed to uninterruptible power supplies (UPS systems). APC teaches that a Delta Conversion system in which power is supplied to the inverter by both the battery and an input converter eliminates the drawbacks of alternative configurations (APC, The Delta Conversion On-Line UPS). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to implement such a system for modified Marquez in order to eliminate drawbacks of alternative configurations. As voltage is supplied to the inverter by both the battery and the source converter (APC Fig. 6), the voltage to the inverter will necessarily be the voltage of the battery any time the input voltage is lower.
Regarding claim 2, the power generation system of modified Marquez is mounted on a vehicle (Marquez Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, the controller manages the contactors (Edlund [0041]), which will distribute power to both outputs when switched on.
Regarding claim 8, Edlund teaches that the controller signals the fuel cell based on the state of charge of the battery (Edlund [0043]).
Regarding claim 9, Marquez teaches a control method of a fuel cell power system comprising operating a fuel cell to produce DC power (Marquez [0041]).
Marquez does not teach a second step of controlling a DC-DC converter for the fuel cell output. Edlund teaches a fuel cell system in which a controller (34) controls a DC-DC converter (43) that steps up the voltage output of a fuel cell (Edlund Fig. 7 and [0072]) and maintains the voltage input of the load based on the output of the converter and the battery (Edlund Fig. 3 and [0038]). Edlund teaches that this system prevents damage to fuel cells and optimizes operation (Edlund [0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply the system of Edlund to the fuel cell charger of Marquez in order to prevent damage to fuel cells and optimize operation.
Marquez does not teach a third step of checking a set state of a domestic power charging switch and an electric vehicle charging switch or a fourth step of controlling power supplied from the battery based on the switch states. Edlund teaches that breakers 52 and 54 may be provided with contactors (i.e. switches) with two-way communication to allow for increased control of the system (Edlund [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add such switches to the system to allow for increased control. Edlund teaches that the control system detects the status of the breakers (i.e. checks the state of the switches) and directs the operation of the fuel cell system accordingly (i.e. a fourth step of controlling voltage provided based on the result of the third step).
Edlund teaches that the battery is charged with the output of the fuel cell (Edlund [0034]) and that the output of the fuel cell is stepped up to the battery voltage (Edlund [0075]). The voltage of the battery is therefore necessarily higher than the voltage of the fuel cell.
Modified Marquez does not teach that the output of the voltage distributor is set to the voltage of the battery. Modified Marques does not teach any particular voltage distribution system for the battery backup system. APC is directed to uninterruptible power supplies (UPS systems). APC teaches that a Delta Conversion system in which power is supplied to the inverter by both the battery and an input converter eliminates the drawbacks of alternative configurations (APC, The Delta Conversion On-Line UPS). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to implement such a system for modified Marques in order to eliminate drawbacks of alternative configurations. As voltage is supplied to the inverter by both the battery and the source converter (APC Fig. 6), the voltage to the inverter will necessarily be the voltage of the battery any time the input voltage is lower.
Regarding claim 10, there are only four possible combinations of two switches (On/On, On/Off, Off/On, and Off/Off). Checking the switch state of two devices would necessarily include one of these states.
Regarding claim 12, Edlund teaches that the controller signals the fuel cell based on the state of charge of the battery (Edlund [0043]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, power from both the battery and the DC-DC converter of Edlund are provided to any output that is not switched off (Edlund Fig. 3 and [0051]) regardless of the switching state of the other outputs.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez in view of Edlund and APC as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, as evidenced by WeCharg Nema 14-50 receptacle description, https://wecharg.com/product/nema-14-50-receptacle-for-240v-50-amp/, retrieved 2/3/2025, hereinafter referred to as WeCharg.
Regarding claim 4, modified Marquez does not explicitly teach that the voltage of the DC-AC converter is single-phase 220V. Marquez depicts a charging panel (Marquez Fig. 5) that includes a NEMA 14-50 outlet (the upper row, 220 VAC outlets). NEMA 14-50 outlets are single-phase outlets (see product description in WeCharg). The system of modified Marquez must therefore include a single-phase 220V inverter to supply these outlets.
Regarding claim 14, modified Marquez does not explicitly teach that the voltage of the DC-AC converter is single-phase 220V. Marquez depicts a charging panel (Marquez Fig. 5) that includes a NEMA 14-50 outlet (the upper row, 220 VAC outlets). NEMA 14-50 outlets are single-phase outlets (see product description in WeCharg). The system of modified Marquez must therefore include a single-phase 220V inverter to supply these outlets.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez in view of Edlund and APC as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of McBain et al. (US 2008/0085430 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Marquez does not teach that the electric vehicle charger adjusts a level of output DC electricity by varying a resistance value of a variable resistor. McBain is directed to a method of controlling hybrid fuel cell systems (McBain Abstract). McBain teaches a circuit for charging a battery (McBain Fig. 2) comprising a variable resistor (138). McBain teaches that such a resistor allows the use of an active control algorithm to control charging by varying output voltage (McBain [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a variable resistor in the charger circuit of modified Marquez in order allow the use of an active control algorithm.
Regarding claim 15, modified Marquez does not teach that the electric vehicle charger adjusts a level of output DC electricity by varying a resistance value of a variable resistor. McBain teaches a circuit for charging a battery (McBain Fig. 2) comprising a variable resistor (138). McBain teaches that such a resistor allows the use of an active control algorithm to control charging by varying output voltage (McBain [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a variable resistor in the charger circuit of modified Marquez in order allow the use of an active control algorithm.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights