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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the method of claim 1 includes steps of heating zeolite and removing desorbed water and because the claims are directed to system for carrying out the process of Group I and define the same essential characteristics . This is not found persuasive because the Applicant has not demonstrated the inventions have unity of invention. If an examiner finds that a national stage applications lacks unity of invention under § 1.475, the examiner may in an Office action require the applicant in the response to that action to elect an invention to which the claims shall be restricted. See 37 C.F.R. 1.499. The restriction requirement in this National Stage Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 has been made because there is lack of unity of invention a posteriori due to the lack of special technical feature defining a contribution over the prior art due all elements of claim 1 (including steps of heating zeolite and removing desorbed water) being present in the prior art. The presence of a prior art rejection below further shows there is lack of unity, as the method for operating a fuel cell system as claimed is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art. See also MPEP §1850(II). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim s 10 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 3, 2026. Claim Objections Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 “…is initiated when a maximum hydrogen concentration (X H2,max ) , a maximum hydrogen partial pressure (p H2 ) is not reached in the recirculation path (3), or both.” should recite “…is initiated when a maximum hydrogen concentration (X H2,max ) is not reached in the recirculation path , a maximum hydrogen partial pressure (p H2 ) is not reached in the recirculation path (3), or both.” for purposes of clarity. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 6 and 9 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 6 recites “…wherein, before step c) is initiated, preferably a check is made as to whether dilution conditions are present…”. The phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 9 recites the limitation "… FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT the first flushing …" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests the claim recite “… a first flushing…” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hering ( DE102017210339A ), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) received March 31, 2026. The English machine translation of Hering is attached and referenced below. Regarding Claim 1, Hering teaches a method for operating a fuel cell device (Fig. 1, #10 and Para. [0008]) (i.e. a method for operating a fuel cell system) comprising a fuel cell (Fig. 1 , #14) wherein hydrogen is supplied to the anode and oxygen is supplied to the cathode (Para. [0015]) (i.e. in which at least one fuel cell is supplied with hydrogen via an anode path and with oxygen via a cathode path), an anode exhaust line (Fig. 1 ,#28) (i.e. anode exhaust gas escaping from the fuel cell) wherein anode exhaust gas which contains water flows to a humidification unit (Fig. 1, #40) (i.e. is recirculated via a recirculation path) and the humidification unit comprises zeolites for adsorption of water (Para. [0005]) (i.e. wherein water vapor contained in the anode exhaust gas is adsorbed by means of a zeolite reservoir) wherein desorption of water can take place (Para. [0040]) (i.e. wherein for the regeneration of the zeolite reservoir) wherein a three-way valve (Fig. 1, #42) is used to adjust whether exhaust gas flows through the humidification unit for loading with water or not (Para. [0030], [0031]) (i.e. separating the zeolite reservoir from the recirculation path by closing at least one shut-off valve, by switching a directional control valve or both), wherein a heating element is integrated into the humidification unit (Para. [0045]) providing for desorption of water in the humidification unit (Para. [00 45]) and the heating element involves a heating wire (Para. [0046]) (i.e. heating the zeolite reservoir by means of an electrical heating device so that previously adsorbed water is desorbed) and unloading of water by desorption (Para. [0010]) and a three-way valve (Fig. 1 ,#42) is used to adjust whether exhaust gas flows through the humidification unit for loading with water or not (Para. [0030]) (i.e. removing desorbed water from the system by switching the direction control valve again). Regarding Claim 7, Hering teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Hering further teaches the three-way valve (Fig. 1 ,#42) (i.e. directional control valve) is used to adjust whether exhaust gas flows through the humidification unit for loading with water or not (Para. [0030]) and anode exhaust gas containing water is removed from the humidification unit via line 48 (Fig. 5, #48) wherein the line is introduced into a cathode exhaust gas line (Fig. 5, #30) in the afterburner (Fig. 5, #32) (i.e. desorbed water is introduced into a cathode exhaust gas path via the direction control valve) and is then discharged (Fig. 5, #34) (i.e. discharged to the environment via the directional control valve). 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. 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. Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hering ( DE102017210339A ) in view of Zornes (WO 01/78870) . Regarding Claim 3, Hering teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Hering further teaches a heating element is integrated into the humidification unit (Para. [0045]) providing for desorption of water in the humidification unit (Para. [00 45]) and the heating element involves a heating wire (Para. [0046]) (i.e. at least one heating element integrated into the zeolite reservoir is used as an electrical heating device for heating the zeolite reservoir). Hering does not teach a heating cartridge. However, Zornes teaches a method of heating for regenerating zeolite (page 13, lines 13-15) and a cartridge heater (i.e. at least one heating cartridge) (pg. 32, lines 30-31). The substitution of the heating cartridge FILLIN "what secondary reference teaches" \d "[what the secondary reference teaches]" \* MERGEFORMAT as taught by Zornes , for the heating element of Hering would achieve the predictable result of providing a heating element capable of being used as an electrical heating device for heating zeolite (see Zornes pg. 32, lines 5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute of the heating cartridge FILLIN "what secondary reference teaches" \d "[what the secondary reference teaches]" \* MERGEFORMAT as taught by Zornes , for the heating element of Hering , as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a heating element capable of being used as an electrical heating device for heating zeolite (see Zornes pg. 32, lines 5). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Claim s 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hering ( DE102017210339A ) in view of Kawakami et al. (JP2015064192A), cited in the IDS received March 31, 2026. The English machine translation of Kawakami et al. is attached and is referenced below. Regarding Claim 4, Hering teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Hering does not teach wherein the pressure and/or temperature of the zeolite reservoir are measured and from the measured values, the amount of water desorbed in the zeolite reservoir is deduced. However, Kawakami et al. teaches a zeolite layer provided with a temperature sensor (pg. 65, lines 1-2) wherein in the regeneration process, a control device terminates the regeneration (or desorption of water, see Para. [0006]) process based on the temperature detected (pg. 65, lines 6-9) (i.e. wherein the temperature in the zeolite reservoir is measured and from the measured value, the amount of water desorbed in the zeolite reservoir is deduced). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hering to incorporate the teaching of a method of using a sensor in the regeneration process and a control device to terminate regeneration based on the temperature detected a s taught by Kawakami et al., as it would become possible top optimize the time required for the regeneration process in the method (Para. [0070], pg. 66, line 3). Regarding Claim 5, Hering teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Hering does not teach where in the heating of the zeolite reservoir is ended when a prespecified maximum pressure and/or temperature limit value is reached in the zeolite reservoir . However, Kawakami et al. teaches a zeolite layer provided with a temperature sensor (pg. 65, lines 1-2) wherein in the regeneration process, a control device terminates the regeneration (or desorption of water, see Para. [0006]) process based on the temperature detected when the temperature detected rises to predetermined temperature (pg. 65, lines 6-9) wherein regeneration process uses heating (Para. [0056])(i.e. teach where in the heating of the zeolite reservoir is ended when a prespecified maximum temperature limit value is reached in the zeolite reservoir .). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hering to incorporate the teaching of a method of using a sensor in the regeneration process and a control device to terminate regeneration based on the temperature detected when the temperature rises to a predetermined temperature a s taught by Kawakami et al., as it would become possible top optimize the time required for the regeneration process in the method (Para. [0070], pg. 66, line 3). Claim 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hering ( DE102017210339A ) view of Liu et al. (CN 109786790A) , cited in the IDS received March 31, 2026 . The English machine translation of Hering and Liu et al. are attached and referenced below. Regarding Claim 6, Hering teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Hering does not teach wherein before step c) is initiated , preferably a check is made as to whether the dilution conditions are present for opening a flushing valve. H owever, Liu et al. teaches a fuel cell system (Para. [0015]) control method (i.e. a method for operating a fuel cell system) comprising a molecular sieve (Fig. 1 , #14) in which the regeneration of the molecular sieves (Para. [0062]) comprises a second outlet solenoid valve (Fig. 1, #16) on the drain pipe being opened (i.e. opening a flushing valve) when the ambient temperature is less than or equal to 5 degrees Celsius (Para. [0082]) (i.e. wherein before step c) a check is made as to whether dilution conditions are present for opening). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hering to incorporate the teaching of a flushing valve with a check being made as to whether dilution conditions are present as taught by Liu et al., as such a structure would provide a system that can reliably remove excess water and enable the fuel cell system to operate stably (Para. [0009]). Regarding Claim 8, Hering teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Hering does not teach wherein before step c) is initiated, preferably a check is made as to whether the dilution conditions are present for opening a flushing valve. However, Liu et al. teaches a fuel cell system (Para. [0015]) control method (i.e. a method for operating a fuel cell system) comprising a molecular sieve (Fig. 1 , #14) in which the regeneration of the molecular sieves (Para. [0062]) comprises a third three-way valve (Fig. 1, #15) (i.e. at least one shut-off valve) connected to second outlet solenoid valve (Fig. 1, #16) on the drain pipe (Para. [0082]) (i.e. at least one shut-off valve is opened so that desorbed water from the zeolite reservoir is routed to the at least one flushing valve). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hering to incorporate the teaching of the third three-way valve (i.e. shut-off valve) that is opened so that desorbed water from the zeolite reservoir is routed to the at least one flushing valve, as taught by Liu et al., as such a structure would provide a system that can reliably remove excess water and enable the fuel cell system to operate stably (Para. [0009]). Regarding Claim 9, Hering teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Hering further teaches the method of operating the fuel cell device f or charging water in normal operation and stored for possible later start-up of the fuel cell device (Para. [0008]) wherein the humidification unit is purged during start-up (Para. [0009]) (i.e. wherein steps a to c) are repeated). Hering does not teach a first flashing valve is opened during the first flushing, and a second flushing valve is opened during repeated flushing. However, Liu et al. teaches a fuel cell system (Para. [0015]) control method (i.e. a method for operating a fuel cell system) comprising a molecular sieve (Fig. 1 , #14) in which the regeneration of the molecular sieves (Para. [0062]) comprises a third three-way valve (Fig. 1, #15) (i.e. a first flushing valve) and a second outlet solenoid valve (Fig. 1, #16) (i.e. a second flushing valve) on the drain pipe (Para. [0082]) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hering to incorporate the teaching of the third three-way valve and the second solid valve (i.e. a first flushing valve opened during a first flushing and a second flushing valve), as taught by Liu et al., as such a structure would provide a system that can reliably remove excess water and enable the fuel cell system to operate stably (Para. [0009]). Thus, the proposed modification of Hering as modified by Liu et al. would provide a second flushing valve opened during repeated flushing, wherein Hering teaches the repeated flushing. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 2 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record alone, or in combination, teach, suggest or render obvious the invention of at least claim 2. Claim 2 teaches a method for operating a fuel cell system requiring the elements therein. Notably the claim requires, for the regeneration of the zeolite reservoir, step a) separating the zeolite reservoir from the recirculation path by closing at least one shut-off valve by switching a directional control valve, or both, wherein step a) is initiated when a maximum hydrogen concentration, a maximum hydrogen partial pressure is not reached in the recirculation path, or both. Hering (cited above) teaches a method for operating a fuel cell device (Fig. 1, #10 and Para. [0008]) (i.e. a method for operating a fuel cell system) comprising a fuel cell (Fig. 1 , #14) comprising an anode exhaust line (Fig. 1 ,#28) wherein anode exhaust gas which contains water flows to a humidification unit (Fig. 1, #40) and the humidification unit comprises zeolites for adsorption of water (Para. [0005]) wherein desorption of water can take place (Para. [0040]) (i.e. wherein for the regeneration of the zeolite reservoir) wherein a three-way valve (Fig. 1, #42) is used to adjust whether exhaust gas flows through the humidification unit for loading with water or not (Para. [0030], [0031]) (i.e. comprising the step of separating the zeolite reservoir from the recirculation path by closing at least one shut-off valve, by switching a directional control valve or both) (Para. [0045]). However, none of the prior art teach wherein step a) is initiated when a maximum hydrogen concentration [is not reached in the recirculation path] , a maximum hydrogen partial pressure is not reached in the recirculation path, or both . Therefore, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to arrive at the claimed invention of claim 2 in the prior art (a method for operating a fuel cell system wherein for the regeneration of the zeolite reservoir, step a) separating the zeolite reservoir from the recirculation path by closing at least one shut-off valve by switching a directional control valve, or both, wherein step a) is initiated when a maximum hydrogen concentration is not reached in the recirculation path, a maximum hydrogen partial pressure is not reached in the recirculation path, or both). None of the prior art alone or in combination renders obvious the claimed invention of claim 2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5292 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ula Ruddock can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571 272-1481 . 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. /ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729