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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections of claim 23 and the second 112 rejection of claim 24 (i.e. the “characteristic map” rejection) have been withdrawn because the current examiner does not agree with these previous rejections. The remaining 112 rejections have all been also been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-23, 26-28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kato et al (JP 2013113366A) with or without the further teaching of Katano et al (JP 2007035563A). Both Kato and Katano were cited in the 5/21/2025 IDS but are being relied on for the first time with this office action. The examiner is relying on the text of the Espacenet translations provided in this office action.
With respect to claim 16, Kato discloses a method for operating a fuel-cell system comprising an anode supply path (gas line connecting 121 and 110 in fig. 1) that establishes a fluidic connection between a fuel-cell stack 110 and at least one fuel-source (H2 tank 121) via a tank shut-off valve (122) (fig. 3 and par. 0024, 0029, and 0030). Kato further discloses an anode-side shut-off valve (123) which is clearly configured to prohibit the supply of fuel to the stack and an excess-pressure valve (126) that is upstream of the anode-side shut-off valve (fig. 1) that is configured to conduct fuel away (via pipe 126b) if the pressure in the anode section exceeds a tripping pressure (i.e. higher than P12) (par. 0047). Kato further discloses in fig. 4 a shut-down state of fuel cell (i.e. both 122 and 123 are shut off in S101) a check whether the rising pressure exceeds a threshold, and in response to that increasing pressure opens the anode-side shut-off valve (123) to relieve the pressure. See fig. 4 and par. 0063-0067.
Although Kato does not describe the reason for the pressure increase to be a warming of the fuel, Kato nonetheless responds to the increase in pressure regardless of the root cause of the increased pressure. It does not appear that the warming of the fuel further defines the claimed method but is instead what the claimed control system is responding to. Because the method of Kato meets the controller claimed limitations and is generic to the cause of the pressure increase, Kato anticipates the claimed invention regardless of the source for the pressure increase.
Alternatively, it is noted that Katano describes a number of reasons for H2 pressure levels to increase or decrease under a shut-down scenario including that the temperature of the fuel rises due to heat exchange between the gas and the adjacent fuel cell (par. 0063). Hence Katano teaches that a pressure increase due to a warming of the fuel was a known condition to both monitor and potentially mitigate. Hence, even if the warming of the fuel were given further due consideration in claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing for Kato to control for fuel warming as suggested by Katano because this was a known condition in fuel-cell shutdown scenarios.
With respect to claim 17, finding the time necessary to sufficiently lower the pressure in the system requires only routine skill in the art. It would have been obvious to utilize less than 10 seconds either because 10 seconds was sufficient to significantly lower the pressure or because the shut down period is less than 10 seconds.
With respect to claim 18, Kato teaches that there is a defined first period of time (∆t0) that elapses before anode-side shut-off valve is opened (par. 0064).
With respect to claim 19, it is first noted that this claim would read on multiple iterations of the anode-side shut-off operation of Kato shown in fig. 5 and 6. Hence Kato would teach several pressure-relief operations due to the presence of several shut down states. It would clearly be obvious for a fuel-cell to have numerous shut-down states during normal fuel cell usage. Alternatively, Kato already recognized that it is desirable to provide pressure relief whenever pressure exceeds certain thresholds. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that several pressure-relief operations could be carried out per shut-down state to make sure the pressure remains at suitably low levels due the entire shut-down state.
With respect to claims 20 and 21, the initial pressure increase Kato was counteracting was principally incomplete closure of the pressure reducing valve (par. 0005) and once that is corrected and pressure considerably stabilizes after that (fig. 5). Hence if multiple pressure checks are being done (as was obvious as described above), it would have been obvious that those pressure equilibriums can be less frequent as a function of time from shut-down state. Less frequent pressure equilibrations would be equivalent to the second period of time being longer than the first period of time. Finding the time to for these subsequent pressure equilibrations, including a time between 3 and 20 minutes would require only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claims 22 and 23, it is noted these claims’ usage of the broad term “defined on the basis of” is really only broadly suggesting the underlying logic utilized to choose these times and doesn’t appear to further define the actual method. As an example, if Kato (or Kato in view of Katano) chose 15 minutes for its second time period, whether the prior art chose that for reasons A, B, or C doesn’t further define the fact that the prior art chose a time and the method responded accordingly. It noted that neither of these claims have explicit steps of either measuring the ambient-temperature or the fuel-temperature, but rather just vague statements that times are chosen based on these things.
Alternatively, Katano already suggested that the pressure increase due to the fuel warming was a function of both the temperature of the fuel gas as well as the temperature of the fuel gas near the fuel-cell (equivalent to the ambient temperature) and that the presumed pressure increase was a function of these things (par. 0063 and 0064). Hence even if these “defined on the basis of” limitations were given further due consideration, Katano already suggests these variables for control were already known.
With respect to claim 26, the logic map in fig. 5 of Kato shows that the pressure relief occurs when the valve 123 is open and would remain closed when pressures are not exceeded. The times before and after this pressure relief read on the claimed first and second times discussed above. It is believed the logic level for “2” in fig. 5 is the control of valve 123. This logic is (true, high, on) during pressure relief and (false, low, off). This would constitute the claimed “activated” and “not activated”.
With respect to claim 27, the pressure is measured using 132 which would be the current pressure and when that exceeds P2 (reads on limiting value), valve 123 is opened (steps s102 and s103 of fig. 4, par. 0063-0067).
With respect to claim 28, Kato discloses a pressure-reducer 1 where the anode section 123a is downstream of that (fig. 1 and par. 0063).
With respect to claim 30, Kato (or Kato in view of Katano) anticipated or rendered obvious all the limitations of claim 16, utilized logic steps to conduct said method (fig. 4), and further taught the use of an ECU to perform these functions (par. 0023). This renders obvious a non-transitory computer-readable medium to be executed by a microprocessor for the method of claim 16.
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato with or without Katano as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Kazuno (US 2015/0380788). Kazuno is cited and relied on for the first time in this office action. Its use is necessitated by the new rejections based on Kato.
With respect to claim 24, Kato with or without Katano rendered obvious all the limitations of claim 20 but did not explicitly recite the use of a characteristic map for storing the operating times to be utilized. Kazuno explicitly teaches that it is known in the fuel cell art to utilize a characteristic map for storing the various interrelationships the ECU will use to control the fuel-cell operation. See fig. 6 and 9 and par. 0092. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize a characteristic map as suggested by Kazuno for the method of Kato (or Kato and Katano) because characteristic maps were a known means for storing operating parameters to be utilized to control the fuel-cell operation.
With respect to the various values and what they “depend[s] on”, analogous to the issue discussed in the rejection of claims 22 and 23 above, the underlying logic utilized to choose these times and doesn’t appear to further define the actual method itself. The values chosen are just the values imputed into the characteristic map itself and the method doesn’t explicitly define step or steps in the method for determining those values. However, see the alternative interpretation of claims 22 and 23 discussed above, namely that Katano also suggested that fuel-temperature and ambient-temperature are known parameters to based the pressure analysis on. Furthermore, Kato already suggests the use of initial pressure (P0) as part of the analysis as well (fig. 5).
With respect to claim 25, because the pressure increase is entirely a function of how the fuel-cell is behaving during the shutting down of the fuel-cell system, it is entirely obvious that any parameters utilized to control this shutdown method would be determined during a shutdown operation.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato or Kato in view of Katano as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Mazzotta (DE 10 2012 014 126 A1). Mazzotta is cited and relied on for the first time in this office action. Its use is necessitated by the new rejections based on Kato.
Kato or Kato in view of Katano set forth all the limitations of the claim but did not explicitly recite closing the anode-side shut-off valve again if a closing pressure of the pressure-reducer is reached. Mazzotta discloses an alternate anode gas line that the metering valve 10 just downstream of the pressure reducer 9 (i.e. valve 10 is roughly equivalent to the anode-side shut-off valve of Kato which is downstream of its pressure reducer) can also be used to make sure the pressure being delivered by the pressure reducer is also a above a certain minimum pressure by closing valve 10 until that minimum pressure is reached. See the figure and par. 0008. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing for Kato or Kato in view of Katano to occasionally close the anode-side shut-off valve as suggested by Mazzotta in order to make sure the gas pressure achieves minimal thresholds for fuel cell operation. Furthermore, it would be obvious to have this closure be associated with the cessation of the shutdown procedure because that procedure significantly reduced the gas pressure in the line (see P2 in Kato fig. 4) and it is possible this procedure could have reduced pressure below and closing pressure of a pressure reducer. Closing the valve temporarily would allow the pressure in the line to re-equilibrate to at least minimum levels desired for fuel-cell operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights