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 of Species II, claims 3-8, in the reply filed on 02/12/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding claims 1-15, the term “choking” is not defined in the specification and is not a term assumed to have a known definition. For the purpose of examination, examiner will consider any situation wherein the fuel supply is restricted to a point where the cell’s ability to operate efficiently is limited. Further clarification is requested.
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, 3, 11, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR20210071677). The citations below are in reference to the translation obtained via Google Patents on 05/05/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a fuel cell including a hydrogen supply line connected to the anode side of the fuel cell and a pressure sensor provided in the hydrogen supply line for measuring the pressure of the hydrogen supply line (abstract and Description, paragraph 1-6). The hydrogen supply line is also provided with a discharge valve for discharging gas containing hydrogen to the outside air (Description, paragraph 10-20). Figure 1 shows the discharge valve 71 be connected to a line which is considered to be the discharge line which communicated to the outside via the outside air line 70. An opening control unit is taught to open and close the discharge valve in order to determine an error between the sensed value of the pressure sensor and the atmospheric pressure and correcting the sensing value of the pressure sensor based on the time for controlling the opening of the discharge valve (Description, paragraph 10-20). The pressure sensor is considered to provide a measurement indicative of the hydrogen flowing in the hydrogen supply line being impeded in some way and is therefore considered to constitute “choking” as claimed and in view of the claim interpretation as discussed above.
Park does not explicitly teach the controller operating the valve based on the amount of gas discharged, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize any metric which would indicate a problem with the hydrogen flow such as gas discharge amount instead of the pressure sensed, as both indicate flow disruption without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches the sensor as discussed above.
Park does not explicitly teach the sensor type and configuration as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple sensors configured as claimed, insofar as an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try dependent upon the desired locations of pressure measurements without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches a fuel cell including a hydrogen supply line connected to the anode side of the fuel cell and a pressure sensor provided in the hydrogen supply line for measuring the pressure of the hydrogen supply line (abstract and Description, paragraph 1-6). The hydrogen supply line is also provided with a discharge valve for discharging gas containing hydrogen to the outside air (Description, paragraph 10-20). Figure 1 shows the discharge valve 71 be connected to a line which is considered to be the discharge line which communicated to the outside via the outside air line 70. An opening control unit is taught to open and close the discharge valve in order to determine an error between the sensed value of the pressure sensor and the atmospheric pressure and correcting the sensing value of the pressure sensor based on the time for controlling the opening of the discharge valve (Description, paragraph 10-20). The pressure sensor is considered to provide a measurement indicative of the hydrogen flowing in the hydrogen supply line being impeded in some way and is therefore considered to constitute “choking” as claimed and in view of the claim interpretation as discussed above.
Park does not explicitly teach the controller operating the valve based on the amount of gas discharged, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize any metric which would indicate a problem with the hydrogen flow such as gas discharge amount instead of the pressure sensed, as both indicate flow disruption without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches the sensor as discussed above.
Park does not explicitly teach the sensor type and configuration as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple sensors configured as claimed, insofar as an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try dependent upon the desired locations of pressure measurements without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, An opening control unit is taught to open and close the discharge valve in order to determine an error between the sensed value of the pressure sensor and the atmospheric pressure and correcting the sensing value of the pressure sensor based on the time for controlling the opening of the discharge valve (Description, paragraph 10-20).
Park teaches the sensor as discussed above.
Park does not explicitly teach the sensor type and configuration as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple sensors configured as claimed, insofar as an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try dependent upon the desired locations of pressure measurements without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, An opening control unit is taught to open and close the discharge valve in order to determine an error between the sensed value of the pressure sensor and the atmospheric pressure and correcting the sensing value of the pressure sensor based on the time for controlling the opening of the discharge valve (Description, paragraph 10-20).
Park teaches the sensor as discussed above.
Park does not explicitly teach the sensor type and configuration as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple sensors configured as claimed, insofar as an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try dependent upon the desired locations of pressure measurements without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 13 are 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: the closest prior art is considered to be Park et al (KR20210071677).
Park teaches the hydrogen supply system as discussed above.
Park neither teaches nor renders obvious the controller configured to calculate the different between pressures measured through the hydrogen nozzle-pressure sensor and the hydrogen low-pressure sensor, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/SARAH A. SLIFKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 May 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights