DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/135419, “FUEL CELL SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF”, was filed with the USPTO on 4/17/23 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 10/6/22.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 1/18/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/8/26 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 3-7 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation, “a controller electrically connected to the stack pressure sensor and the air cutoff valve, determining pressurization time and a torque for the motor of the air cutoff valve based on that the controller concludes that shutting off the air inside the cathode of the fuel cell stack is required and then controlling the motor based on the determined pressurization time and the determined torque after stopping of a fuel cell in the fuel cell stack so that an opening angle of the air cutoff valve is maintained even after stopping of the fuel cell is completed, wherein a case where the air inside the cathode needs to be shut off is when a pressure of the air on the cathode side exceeds atmospheric pressure” is unclear.
More specifically, it is unclear which of the recited operations the controller is configured to automatically execute via programming of the controller.
Firstly, it is noted that the 1/8/26 amendment removes the “configured to” language; thus, it is unclear if any of the recited operations are enabled by a structural configuration, such as an internal program, of the controller, or whether the operations are performed by the controller based on the manual inputs by a user. The comma after the words “air cutoff valve” separates the “determining” action from the controller.
Secondly, the claim requires “determining pressurization time and a pressurization torque for the motor of the air cutoff valve based on that the controller concludes that shutting off the air inside the cathode of the fuel cell stack is required… wherein a case where the air inside the cathode needs to be shutoff is when a pressure of the air on the cathode side exceeds atmospheric pressure”. However, claim 1 does not actually require that the controller is configured to compare the cathode side air pressure with the atmospheric pressure. Instead, a user could measure this and then initiate a command, which allows the controller to “conclude” that the shutting off of the air is required. No operation is given in claim 1 to explain how the controller is able to conclude. It is noted that claim 6 does include an algorithm suggesting an algorithm for comparing outlet air pressure and atmospheric pressure, however, claim 1 does not specify that such an algorithm must be used, and it is unclear whether or not any use of an algorithm is implied.
Thirdly, claim 1 requires determining pressurization time and a torque followed by controlling the motor based on the determined pressurization time and torque “after stopping of a fuel cell in the stack so that an opening angle of the air cutoff valve is maintained”, but it is not clear if the stopping of the fuel cell is executed by the controller, such as by an automatic sequence, or if the stopping of the fuel cell is manually initiated by a user, independently from the programming within the controller, when the fuel cell is not desired to operate.
Lastly, claim 1 requires “controlling the motor based on the determined pressurization time and the determined torque after stopping of a fuel cell in the fuel cell stack so that an opening angle of the air cutoff valve is maintained even after stopping of the fuel cell is completed”, but it is not clear if controlling “based on” the determined pressurization time and determined torque is intended to actually require setting the pressurization time and the pressurization torque to the values determined previously.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tomita (US 2015/0162629) and Yamanaka (US 2014/0205926).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Tomita teaches a fuel cell system (e.g. Fig. 1), comprising: an air supply line (item 20) supplying air to a fuel cell stack (item 1), and an air discharge line (item 23) discharging post-reaction air to an outside of the fuel cell system; a stack pressure sensor (item 29) provided in the air supply line to measure pressure of the air at an inlet side of the fuel cell stack (paragraph [0034]), wherein the air is supplied to a cathode of the fuel cell stack (paragraph [0025]); an air cutoff valve (item 26) provided with a bypass line (item 25) connecting the air supply line and the air discharge line in the air cutoff valve (see Fig. 1); and a controller (item 4) electrically connected to the stack pressure sensor (paragraph [0043]) and electrically connected to the air cutoff valve (paragraph [0031, 0044, 0062]).
Regarding the 1/8/26 amendment, Tomita teaches the controller configured to control operation of the air cutoff valve (paragraphs [0031, 0044, 0062]), but does not teach that the air cutoff valve is operated by a motor, and that the controller is a controller electrically connected to the stack pressure sensor and the air cutoff valve, determining pressurization time and a torque for the motor of the air cutoff valve based on that the controller concludes that shutting off the air inside the cathode of the fuel cell stack is required and then controlling the motor based on the determined pressurization time and the determined torque after stopping of a fuel cell in the fuel cell stack so that an opening angle of the air cutoff valve is maintained even after stopping of the fuel cell is completed, wherein a case where the air inside the cathode needs to be shut off is when a pressure of the air on the cathode side exceeds atmospheric pressure, as claimed.
In the fuel cell art, Yamanaka teaches a fuel cell system (e.g. Fig. 1) comprising a bypass valve operated by a motor (items 63 and 64; paragraph [0051]), and a controller which determines pressurization time and pressurization torque for the motor based on sensed conditions from a pressure sensor (paragraphs [0051, 0054] clarify that the motor is configured to generate a determined amount of torque to the bypass valve 63; paragraph [0072] further clarifies that the amount of torque applied is optimized based on considerations such as pressure differences; Figure 2 suggests that the pressurization time of the motor/valve is controlled by the controller) and after the determining, controlling, by the controller, the motor according to the determined pressurization time and the determined torque after stopping of a fuel cell in the fuel cell stack so that an opening angle of the air cutoff valve is maintained even after stopping of the fuel cell is completed (In Fig. 2, the fuel cell system is stopped in a period between T0 and T1 [0062]; however, Fig. 2 suggests that the valve opening angle is maintained, possibly at 0° opening, after T1). Yamanaka further teaches that such a fuel cell system can improve a prior art fuel cell system by reducing costs by appropriately applying a required amount of force during start/stop operations of the system (paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system a controller electrically connected to the stack pressure sensor and the air cutoff valve, determining pressurization time and a torque for the motor of the air cutoff valve based on that the controller concludes that shutting off the air inside the cathode of the fuel cell stack is required and then controlling the motor based on the determined pressurization time and the determined torque after stopping of a fuel cell in the fuel cell stack so that an opening angle of the air cutoff valve is maintained even after stopping of the fuel cell is completed, for the benefit of reducing costs by optimizing the valve behavior during starting and/or stopping of the fuel cell system as taught by Yamanaka.
It is noted that claim 1 further requires “wherein a case where the air inside the cathode needs to be shut off is when a pressure of the air on the cathode side exceeds atmospheric pressure”; however, no structure and/or specific programming for the controller is associated with this clause”.
As to the method of claim 9, the structure required of the method is taught by the prior art as previously described, and the claimed determining and controlling steps are suggested by the operation of the system, controlled by the controller as previously described. It is noted that Yamanaka does teach controlling the pressurization time and torque based on a determination that shutting off air to the fuel cell stack is required, and maintaining an opening angle of the air cutoff valve even after stopping of the fuel cell is completed (In Fig. 2, the fuel cell system is stopped in a period between T0 and T1 [0062]; however, Fig. 2 suggests that the valve opening angle is maintained, particularly noting that “an opening angle” may be 0° for a closed condition, after T1).
Regarding claim 2, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Claim 2 further requires “wherein a case where the air inside the cathode needs to be shut off is when a pressure of the air on the cathode side exceeds atmospheric pressure.” However, this limitation does not add any new structural features to the fuel cell system, or process steps to the method.
Claims 3-5, 7, 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tomita (US 2015/0162629), Yamanaka (US 2014/0205926) and Farnsworth (US 2022/0271310).
Regarding claim 3 and 10, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1 or 9. Tomita does not appear to teach wherein the controller is configured to determine an outlet air pressure of the fuel cell stack based on a pressure of the air at the inlet side of the fuel cell stack supplied to the cathode measured by the stack pressure sensor, or the corresponding method.
In the fuel cell art, Yamanaka further teaches that the valve is operated in a manner that prevents a large pressure difference between the upstream and downstream valves (paragraph [0008, 0060]), suggesting that outlet pressure is at least implicitly determined based on inlet air pressure.
In the fuel cell art, Farnsworth teaches a fuel cell controller, wherein the controller is configured to determine an outlet air pressure of the fuel cell stack based on a pressure of the air at the inlet side of the fuel cell stack supplied to the cathode measured by the stack pressure sensor (Figure 2 illustrates an exemplary system including an inlet pressure sensor 218, while paragraphs [0062, 0066] describe determining an outlet pressure based on models and the information attained from the sensor). Farnsworth further teaches that the inventive system uses only a small number of sensors, thereby reducing hardware complexity and cost of the system (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the controller to determine an outlet air pressure of the fuel cell stack based on a pressure of the air at the inlet side of the fuel cell stack supplied to the cathode measured by the stack pressure sensor for the benefit of reducing the hardware complexity and cost of the system as taught by Farnsworth; noting that reduced complexity/cost is also a benefit of Yamanaka (paragraph [0005]).
The method is also found to be obvious for the same reasons, as the controlled system performs the claimed method during operation via the configured controller.
Regarding claim 4, 5, 7, 11, 12 and 14, the cited art remains as applied to claim 3 or 10. Tomita further teaches the controller configured to determine the atmospheric pressure via an atmospheric pressure sensor as described in Tomita paragraph [0043], and the controller of the combined embodiment is configured to determine an air outlet pressure in view of Farnsworth and/or Yamanaka as described in the rejection of claim 3.
Since the controller is in possession of both the determined outlet pressure and the atmospheric pressure, the controller is configured to determine the pressurization time and pressurization torque based on these parameters as required by claims 4 and 5. Claims 4 and 5 do not set forth a specific mathematical algorithm which the controller must contain and/or execute in order to calculate the pressurization time and/or pressurization torque. Thus, the controller is not required to contain a specific mathematical algorithm which facilitates the determination, but is readable on the claimed invention for being generally able to determine these values based on the claimed inputs, which it possesses.
Claim 7 further requires that that the atmospheric pressure is received by the controller after the stopping of the fuel cell is completed, and to correct the determined pressurization time and the determined pressurization torque based on the received outlet air pressure of the fuel cell stack and the received atmospheric pressure. However, this operation still relies only on the outlet air pressure of the fuel cell stack and the atmospheric pressure, but the atmospheric pressure is measured after the stopping of the fuel cell is completed. Since the atmospheric pressure detector remains a part of the system, the controller is configured to receive input of the atmospheric pressure after the stopping of the fuel cell. The correction of the pressurization time and pressurization torque does not require any additional structure of the controller, particularly since claim 7 does not specify any specific algorithm or program which must be used for the correction. Therefore, the controller is configured to perform the claimed operation, which does not require structure beyond that taught by the cited art.
The method is also found to be obvious for the same reasons, as the controlled system performs the claimed method during operation via the configured controller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the 112(b) rejection to claim 9 has been overcome by the clarifying amendment.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claims 6 and 13, the closest prior art includes Tomita (US 2015/0162629), Yamanaka (US 2014/0205926), Kawazu (JP 07-272738) and Farnsworth (US 2022/0271310), which are relevant to the claimed invention as described in the rejection of base claim 5 herein, or in the 10/18/25 Non-Final Rejection. As described, the cited art suggests a fuel cell system comprising a controller configured to determine pressurization conditions of an air cutoff valve based on sensed and/or calculated air flow pressure characteristics, but the cited art does not suggest wherein “the controller is configured to determine whether the value obtained by subtracting the atmospheric pressure from the determined outlet air pressure exceeds a predetermined reference value, and according to a result of the determining whether the value obtained by subtracting the atmospheric pressure from the determined outlet air pressure exceeds the predetermined reference value, configured to determine how long to maintain a maximum value of the pressurization torque”, considered in combination with the limitations of base claims 1, 3 and 5. More specifically, the cited art does not suggest the controller configured to first obtain a pressure difference value by subtracting, then compare the obtained value with a predetermined reference value, to determine if the calculated value exceeds the predetermined value, in order to determine how long to maintain a maximum value of pressurization torque, in combination with the other positively recited limitations, as claimed.
A diligent search has been performed; however, no closer prior art has been found which fairly teaches or suggests the limitations of dependent claim 6 or 13 in combination with their respective base claims. Accordingly, claim 6 and 13 are found to contain allowable subject matter; however, the lack of clarity rejection of the base claims must be overcome.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Yoshioka (JP 2017-157386) stack control comprising a pressure sensor, but the sensor is not provided in the air supply line and does not measure pressure at an air inlet;
Tomita (US 2016/0049672) fuel cell system controlled by a controller;
Yamazaki (US 2018/0375127) fuel cell system comprising a control unit for controlling pump, compressor, and air supply valve;
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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights