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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on
01/16/2026.
Status of Rejections
The previous rejections are maintained.
Claims 1-19 and 26 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
MPEP § 2106 describes the two-step analysis of judicial exceptions in claims. “Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception.” Step 2B determines whether additional elements in the claim contribute to an inventive concept.
Claim 1: The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitations claiming “monitoring circuitry…”, “obtaining a plurality of impedance measurements…” are insignificant extra solution activities and would not be considered an abstract idea (“The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim…An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process”, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The limitation claiming “tracking changes…” is considered an observation. Observations are considered mental processes, which are abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)III) (Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”)
The limitation claiming “generating…a model…” includes mathematical scaling and calculations, according to the specification (see page 15). Therefore, this limitation would be considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)I).
Therefore, the claim contains judicial exceptions and Prong 2 analysis is necessary.
Step 2A Prong 2:
According to MPEP 2106.04(d), “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception”. The limitations end with the generation of the model, which is an abstract idea and does not utilize this model to affect a particular process or change the state of a system. Therefore, the claimed invention does not integrate these judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim further claims a generic monitoring circuitry and electrolytic cells. These elements are well understood, routine and conventional across most arts at this point and therefore would not amount to significantly more.
Sudhan et al (US 20170077535 A1) - see e.g. Fig 4; [0002]; [0024].
Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to satisfy the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Claims dependent on the above claims do not remedy the above issues.
Claim 19: This claim contains the same issues as claim 1.
Claim 26: This claim contains the same issues as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 4, 5, 13, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sudhan et al (US 20170077535 A1).
Claim 1: Sudhan discloses a system comprising:
monitoring circuitry (see e.g. Fig 4) coupled to a plurality of electrolytic cells (“electrochemical devices”, see e.g. [0002]; [0024]), the monitoring circuitry configured to perform operations comprising:
obtaining a plurality of impedance measurements of the plurality of electrolytic cells at a plurality of frequencies (see e.g. [0004]);
tracking changes to the plurality of impedance measurements of the plurality of electrolytic cells over a time period (see e.g. [0058]; [0073]); and
generating, based on the changes to the plurality of impedance measurements, a model representing operating conditions of the electrolytic cells on an individual electrolytic cell basis (see e.g. [0075]; [0083]).
Claim 4: Sudhan discloses that the monitoring circuitry comprises an Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) measurement system, the EIS generating an impedance as a function of frequency of each of the plurality of electrolytic cells (see e.g. [0003])
Claim 5: Sudhan discloses that the EIS generates the impedance over a range of frequencies from 1kHz to 10kHz (see e.g. [0061]).
Claim 13: Sudhan discloses that the operations further comprise:
measuring a plurality of voltages of the plurality of electrolytic cells over the time period (see e.g. [0058]; 0064]);
measuring a total voltage of a stack of the plurality of electrolytic cells over the time period (see e.g. [0054]); and
estimating the plurality of impedance measurements based on the measured plurality of voltages of the plurality of electrolytic cells and the measured total voltage of the stack, such that, in the time period, multiple measurements of each cell voltage and the total voltage are performed and impedance is estimated based on an assumption that the impedance does not vary during the time period (see e.g. [0054]).
Claim 15: Sudhan discloses that the operations further comprise:
generating, by a feature extractor, a feature representation that contains information for classification based on the impedance as a function of frequency (states); and
determining, by a classifier, whether a plurality of features represent abnormal operation of an electrolyzer (see e.g. [0063]).
Claim 17: Sudhan discloses that the feature extractor is configured to compare the feature representation to predetermined feature representations representing normal operating conditions to determine abnormal operation of the electrolyzer (see e.g. [0063]).
Claim 18: Sudhan discloses that the operations further comprise:
determining a first type of fault of an electrolyzer in response to detecting a first impedance value within a first impedance range at a first frequency; and
determining a second type of fault of the electrolyzer in response to detecting a second impedance value within a second impedance range at a second frequency (see e.g. [0063]; [0091]).
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) 2, 19 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudhan in view of Domit et al (US 20170107633 A1).
Claim 2: Sudhan discloses an electrolyzer comprises the plurality of electrolytic cells (see e.g. Fig 2); the model is configured to estimate at least one of state-of-health or performance of a given electrolytic cell, predict whether the given electrolytic cell is operating and degrading normally or abnormally, or identify an abnormality of the electrolytic cell (see e.g. [0055]; [0076]).
Sudhan does not explicitly teach that each of the electrolytic cells comprising an electrolyte, two electrodes and a pair of bipolar plates.
Sudhan teaches that the cells are electrochemical cells (see e.g. [0002]) but does not specify the structure of the cells. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would be motivated to find specific cells to use. Domit teaches that electrochemical cells can comprise an electrolyte (see e.g. [0003] and [0040]), two electrodes (see e.g. [0040]) and a pair of bipolar plates (see e.g. [0041]). The bipolar plates “can act as support plates, conductors, provide passages to the respective electrode surfaces for the fuel” (see e.g. [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to utilize the specific configuration of the electrochemical cell taught in Domit because this cell is a known and recognized configuration for an electrochemical cell that has the benefits of including bipolar plates that can act as support plates, conductors, provide passages to the respective electrode surfaces for the fuel.
Claim 19: Sudhan discloses a method (see e.g. abstract) comprising:
obtaining, by monitoring circuitry coupled to a plurality of electrolytic cells of an electrolyzer, a plurality of impedance measurements of the plurality of electrolytic cells at a plurality of frequencies (see e.g. [0004]);
tracking changes to the plurality of impedance measurements of the plurality of electrolytic cells over a time period (see e.g. [0058]; [0073]); and
generating, based on the changes to the plurality of impedance measurements, a model representing operating conditions of the electrolytic cells on an individual electrolytic cell basis (see e.g. [0075]; [0083]).
Sudhan does not explicitly teach that each of the electrolytic cells comprising an electrolyte, two electrodes and a pair of bipolar plates.
Sudhan teaches that the cells are electrochemical cells (see e.g. [0002]) but does not specify the structure of the cells. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would be motivated to find specific cells to use. Domit teaches that electrochemical cells can comprise an electrolyte (see e.g. [0003] and [0040]), two electrodes (see e.g. [0040]) and a pair of bipolar plates (see e.g. [0041]). The bipolar plates “can act as support plates, conductors, provide passages to the respective electrode surfaces for the fuel” (see e.g. [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to utilize the specific configuration of the electrochemical cell taught in Domit because this cell is a known and recognized configuration for an electrochemical cell that has the benefits of including bipolar plates that can act as support plates, conductors, provide passages to the respective electrode surfaces for the fuel.
Claim 26: Sudhan discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (see e.g. [0107]), configure the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, by monitoring circuitry coupled to a plurality of electrolytic cells of an electrolyzer, a plurality of impedance measurements of the plurality of electrolytic cells at a plurality of frequencies (see e.g. [0004]),
tracking changes to the plurality of impedance measurements of the plurality of electrolytic cells over a time period (see e.g. [0058]; [0073]); and
generating, based on the changes to the plurality of impedance measurements, a model representing operating conditions of the electrolytic cells on an individual electrolytic cell basis (see e.g. [0075]; [0083]).
Sudhan does not explicitly teach that each of the electrolytic cells comprising an electrolyte, two electrodes and a pair of bipolar plates.
Sudhan teaches that the cells are electrochemical cells (see e.g. [0002]) but does not specify the structure of the cells. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would be motivated to find specific cells to use. Domit teaches that electrochemical cells can comprise an electrolyte (see e.g. [0003] and [0040]), two electrodes (see e.g. [0040]) and a pair of bipolar plates (see e.g. [0041]). The bipolar plates “can act as support plates, conductors, provide passages to the respective electrode surfaces for the fuel” (see e.g. [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to utilize the specific configuration of the electrochemical cell taught in Domit because this cell is a known and recognized configuration for an electrochemical cell that has the benefits of including bipolar plates that can act as support plates, conductors, provide passages to the respective electrode surfaces for the fuel.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudhan in view of Nagino (US 2021/0216974 A1).
Claim 3: Sudhan discloses using the model to predict the health of an electrolytic cell (see e.g. [0076]) and generating a plurality of EIS data samples and associated performance or failure information (see e.g. [0055]).
Sudhan does not explicitly teach that the model comprises a machine learning technique that is trained based on training data to predict health of an electrolytic cell, the training data comprising a plurality of training samples of the EIS data and associated performance or failure information. Nagino teaches a control system for electrolytic cells (see e.g. [0005]; [0014]) that utilizes a machine learning model (see e.g. [0042]) for predicting health of the cells (“abnormal operation”, see e.g. [0042]). The machine learning model enables the system to predict the state of cells with accuracy (see e.g. [0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the system of Sudhan to incorporate machine learning techniques for developing the model because Nagino teaches that these machine learning model can predict the health of the cells with accuracy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page(s) 7, the Applicant argues that the claims satisfy the requirements of Step 2A, Prong 1 for 35 USC 101 because the claim does not recite a judicial exception. ‘Tracking changes to these physical properties at a plurality of frequencies over a time period is a technical process rooted in electrical engineering and electrochemistry. This process requires specific hardware-software interactions to observe and record the temporal evolution of the internal state of the electrolyzer’ and ‘In the context of the specification and the claims, these operating conditions are physical states, such as electrode degradation, electrolyte concentration, or internal temperature. The model is a technical representation of the physical status of industrial equipment. Unlike the data analysis in Electric Power Group V. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)’. This is not considered persuasive. As stated in the previous Office Action, the tracking of changes is considered an observation, which are mental processes. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)III states that ‘The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea’ and ‘Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.’. The Applicant’s arguments are directed to the devises needed to make the measurements (‘The complexity of tracking multi frequency impedance changes across a plurality of individual cells over time exceeds the capability of the human mind and does not constitute a mental process’) but the tracking itself (making the observation) is the abstract idea. Additionally, the model is an abstract idea because it is a mathematical calculation, shown on Fig 15 of the instant invention. MPEP § 2106 states that “mathematical concepts [are] identified as an abstract idea”.
On page(s) 8, the Applicant argues that the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application and satisfy the requirements of Step 2A, Prong 2 for 35 USC 101. ‘Claim 1 provides a technical improvement in the field of electrolyzer monitoring…The claims as a whole are directed to a technological improvement in the maintenance and operation of electrolyzers, not to a mathematical concept in the abstract’. This is not considered persuasive. As stated in the previous Office Action, the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The model, an abstract idea, is generated based on observations, another abstract idea, and nothing is done with said model to integrate it into a practical application. The model is not then used by the system to affect a particular process or change the state of the system.
On page(s) 8, the Applicant argues that the claims recited additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and satisfy the requirements of Step 2B for 35 USC 101 because the monitoring circuitry and electrolytic cells of the claim 1 is not well understood, routine, and conventional because Sudhan does not anticipate the claim. This is not considered persuasive. Please see the arguments below regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102.
On page(s) 9-10, the Applicant argues that ‘Sudhan does not discuss "generating, based on the changes to the plurality of impedance measurements, a model representing operating conditions of the electrolytic cells on an individual electrolytic cell basis," as recited in claim 1’ because ‘Sudhan appears to be related to adjusting a setting of a fuel cell system. (See Sudhan at paragraph [0075]). Paragraph [0083] of Sudhan appears to be related to "[a] regression developed to determine the relationship between imaginary impedance and fuel utilization model rate using the data obtained by the EIS analyzer." (Sudhan at paragraph [0083]).’ This is not considered persuasive. Sudhan discloses a model (“A regression model may be developed”, see e.g. [0082]) representing operating conditions of the electrolytic cells (see e.g. [0083]: “Thus a regression model relating imaginary impedance to fuel utilization at a particular frequency may be developed and stored for each specific type of fuel cell system”) on an individual electrolytic cell basis (see e.g. [0082]: “A regression model may be developed to determine the relationship between imaginary impedance and fuel utilization rate using the data obtained by the EIS analyzer”; [0058]: “While illustrated as a single EIS analyzer…to monitor any number of independent channels of waveform responses from individual fuel cells of the fuel cell stack 106A and the matrix switch 402 may be sized to support the selected number of independent channels” ) based on the changes to the plurality of impedance measurements (see e.g. [0073] and [0074]: “As discussed above, the controller may use EIS monitoring to plot the real and imaginary parts of the measured impedances resulting from the injected test waveform and compare the plotted impedances to the known signatures of impedance responses of fuel cells with known characteristics”).
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 ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795