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 Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1-8. The examined Claims are 1-8, with Claim 1 being amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has mainly amended independent Claim 1 to clarify that the controller is “configured to” compare a concentration of the fluoride ions detect by the ion detector with a predetermined concentration threshold to determined whether the concentration exceeds the predetermined concentration threshold, and that the controller is “configured to” control at least one of the cathode system device or the anode system device to adjust a load applied to the membrane electrode assemblies based on a determination that the concentration exceeds the predetermined concentration threshold.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests at least Claim 1 as instantly amended (Pages 8-9 of Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims. It is noted that all previous prior art rejections of record are hereby withdrawn. Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant has not amended any of dependent Claims 2-8 to include “configured to” type language with respect to the actions of the claimed controller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2010/0040913).
Regarding Claim 1, Son teaches a fuel cell system configured to operate a fuel cell stack (110) comprising a plurality of stacked unit cells (“fuel cell stack accommodating power generation cells including membrane electrode assemblies”) ([0068], [0096]). As illustrated in Figures 1 and 14 (and the annotated Figure 14 below), the system comprises a “cathode system device” configured to supply air (“cathode gas”) to the fuel cell stack, and an “anode system device” configured to supply hydrogen (“anode gas”) to the fuel cell stack. As illustrated in Figures 1 and 14, Son teaches that the system comprises a fluoride ion concentration meter (162, 172) (“ion detector”) disposed on a flow path through which the hydrogen flows and configured to detect fluoride ions dissolved from the membrane electrode assemblies of the unit cells ([0027], [0069], [0121]). As illustrated in Figures 1 and 14, Son teaches that the system comprises a fluoride ion concentration meter (167) (“ion detector”) disposed on a flow path through the air flows and configured to detect fluoride ions dissolved from the membrane electrode assemblies of the unit cells ([0027], [0069]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Son teaches that the system comprises a controller (140) configured to control the cathode system device and the anode system device ([0051], [0067], [0074], [0088], [0096]). Son teaches that the controller is configured to compare, at least indirectly, a concentration of fluoride ions detected by the ion detector with a predetermined normal range thereof (“predetermined concentration threshold”) to determine whether said concentration exceeds said predetermined normal range ([0064]-[0065], [0092]-[0093]).
Son does not explicitly teach that the controller controls at least one of the cathode or anode system device to adjust a load applied to the membrane electrode assemblies of the fuel cell stack if it is determined that the concentration exceeds the predetermined normal range.
However, Son further teaches that when it is determined that the concentration exceeds the predetermined normal range, the controller both issues a suitable warning and controls the factor causing an increase in the deterioration of the electrolyte membranes to prevent a reduction in their durability ([0093]). Son teaches that factors which can cause an increase in the deterioration of the electrolyte membranes (and therefore are controlled by the controller) include, but are not limited to, operating voltage and temperature ([0094]). Indeed, Son teaches that the deterioration and performance reduction of the electrolyte membranes increases with increasing temperature, and increases with lowering current (and increasing voltage) ([0100], [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would configure the controller of Son, when it is determined that the concentration exceeds the predetermined normal range, to further control at least one of the cathode system device or the anode system device of Son to suitably adjust the temperature (i.e. adjust a thermal “load”) and/or operating current/voltage (i.e. adjust and electrical “load”), in order to prolong the performance and durability of the fuel cell system given that deterioration and performance reduction of electrolyte membranes increases with increasing temperature, and increases with lowering current (and increasing voltage), as taught by Son.
PNG
media_image1.png
477
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Son teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Son does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the fuel cell system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, it is noted that the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a fuel cell system). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, limitations such as “the controller reduces…” are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed a fuel cell system (See MPEP 2114). In the instantly claimed case, the claimed controller is neither “programmed” nor “configured” to perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, the fuel cell system of Son is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the fuel cell system of Son would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Regarding Claim 3, Son teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Son does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the fuel cell system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, it is noted that the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a fuel cell system). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, limitations such as “the controller controls…” are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed a fuel cell system (See MPEP 2114). In the instantly claimed case, the claimed controller is neither “programmed” nor “configured” to perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, the fuel cell system of Son is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the fuel cell system of Son would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Regarding Claim 4, Son teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Son does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the fuel cell system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, it is noted that the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a fuel cell system). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, limitations such as “the controller controls…” are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed a fuel cell system (See MPEP 2114). In the instantly claimed case, the claimed controller is neither “programmed” nor “configured” to perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, the fuel cell system of Son is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the fuel cell system of Son would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Regarding Claim 5, Son teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Son does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the fuel cell system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, it is noted that the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a fuel cell system). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, limitations such as “the controller controls…” are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed a fuel cell system (See MPEP 2114). In the instantly claimed case, the claimed controller is neither “programmed” nor “configured” to perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, the fuel cell system of Son is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the fuel cell system of Son would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Regarding Claim 6, Son teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 14, the cathode system device comprises a humidifier (107) configured to humidify the air ([0096], [0123]).
Son does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the fuel cell system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, it is noted that the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a fuel cell system). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, limitations such as “the controller controls…” are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed a fuel cell system (See MPEP 2114). In the instantly claimed case, the claimed controller is neither “programmed” nor “configured” to perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, the fuel cell system of Son is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the fuel cell system of Son would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Regarding Claim 7, Son teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 14 (and the second annotated Figure 14 below), the fuel cell system further comprises a “cooling device” configured to cool a coolant supplied from the fuel cell stack and supply a cooled coolant to the fuel cell stack ([0096]).
Son does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the fuel cell system in the instantly claimed manner.
However, it is noted that the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a fuel cell system). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, limitations such as “the controller controls…” are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed a fuel cell system (See MPEP 2114). In the instantly claimed case, the claimed controller is neither “programmed” nor “configured” to perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, the fuel cell system of Son is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
Alternatively, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the fuel cell system of Son would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality.
PNG
media_image2.png
481
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2010/0040913), and further in view of Takebe et al (US 2004/0137292).
Regarding Claim 8, Son teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 14, Son teaches a humidity sensor (113b) (“first humidity sensor”) provided on a flow path through which the air flows and configured to detect humidity of the air ([0096]). As illustrated in Figure 14, Son also teaches a humidity sensor (113a) (“second humidity sensor”) provided on a flow path through which the hydrogen flows and configured to detect humidity of the hydrogen.
Son does not explicitly teach a temperature sensor provided in the fuel cell stack and configured to detect a temperature of the fuel cell stack.
However, Takebe teaches a fuel cell system ([0318]). As illustrated in Figure 30, Takebe teaches that the system comprises a temperature sensor (401c) provided in a fuel cell stack (301c), wherein the temperature sensor is both configured to detect a temperature of the fuel cell stack and configured to output a signal indicative of said temperature to a controller so that the controller can perform control operations based on the detected temperature ([0318]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would provided a temperature sensor, as taught by Takebe, in the fuel cell stack of Son, given not only because such a sensor would allow for a direct detection of a temperature of the fuel cell stack, but also would allow for an output of a signal indicative of said temperature to the controller so that the controller could perform control operations based on the detected temperature, as taught by Takebe.
Son, as modified by Takebe, does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the fuel cell system in the instantly claimed manner in the instantly claimed case.
However, it is noted that the instantly claimed invention is drawn to a product/apparatus statutory class of invention (i.e. a fuel cell system). While features of a product/apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP 2114). In particular, limitations such as “…in a case where… the controller controls…” are interpreted to be functionally defined limitations of the instantly claimed a fuel cell system (See MPEP 2114). In the instantly claimed case, the claimed controller is neither “programmed” nor “configured” to perform the claimed functionality.
Therefore, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, the fuel cell system of Son, as modified by Takebe, is considered capable of performing, or capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality in the instantly claimed case.
Alternatively, because the fuel cell system of Son possesses all of the requisite structure of the instantly claimed fuel cell system, as previously described, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the fuel cell system of Son, as modified by Takebe, would be capable of performing, or be capable of being configured to perform, the instantly claimed functionality in the instantly claimed case.
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 MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728