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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 were rejected in the Office Action mailed on 12/29/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1, 3-8 and 12 and cancelled claim 2.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are currently pending in the application, of claims 14-15 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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(s) 1 and 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0328248) and further in view of Moghimi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0036138).
Regarding claim 1, Seo teaches a fuel cell system (paragraph [0002]) comprising:
a first fuel cell group in which a plurality of fuel cell stacks (210) (paragraph [0060]) are connected in series (paragraph [0059]) (see figure 5);
a first power converter (710) configured to control a first power to be generated by the first fuel cell group according to a first output current (i.e., inverter is connected to convert Direct Current (DC) voltage into Alternate Current (AC) voltage of each stack module) (paragraph [0055]-[0057]);
a second fuel cell group in which a plurality of fuel cell stacks (210) (paragraph [0060]) are connected in series (paragraph [0059]) (see figure 5), the plurality of fuel cell stacks in the second fuel cell group having an equivalent configuration to the plurality of fuel cell stacks in the first fuel cell group (see figure 5);
a second power converter (710) configured to control a second power to be generated by the second fuel cell group according to a second output current (i.e., inverter is connected to convert Direct Current (DC) voltage into Alternate Current (AC) voltage of each stack module) (paragraph [0055]-[0057]); and
a first pipe (320) through which oxygen-containing gas (i.e., air) is supplied between the plurality of fuel cell stacks in the first fuel cell group and the plurality of fuel cell stacks in the second fuel cell group (paragraph [0060]).
Seo does not explicitly articulate the specifics of a control device configured to control the first power converter and the second power converter in such a manner that the first output current to be generated by the first fuel cell group is equal to the second output current to be generated by the second fuel cell group.
However, Seo teaches a control device (i.e., controller) (paragraph [0013]) configured to control the first power converter and the second power converter (i.e., controller is connected to power converter…can selectively operate and control fuel stack modules) (paragraph [0056]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Seo to control the first and second power converters such that the output current of the first cell group is equal to the output current of the second fuel cell group. Seo provides the guidance of the fuel cell groups, corresponding power converters and the control device configured to selectively operate and control the fuel cell groups (paragraph [0056]-[0059]). In particular, Seo teaches operating the fuel cell groups in parallel to uniformly distribute load and maintain system stability (paragraph [0059]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in parallel-connected fuel cell systems, unform load distribution is achieved by balancing the output current of each fuel cell group. Therefore, it would have been an obvious design to configure the controller to regulate power converters such that the output currents of the respective fuel cell groups are equal, in order to achieve the explicitly stated goal of uniform load distribution and improved stability. Such modification merely involves the application of known control techniques to achieve a predictable result and would have been within the routine skill of the art. Nonetheless, additional guidance is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
429
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moghimi, also directed to a fuel cell system (abstract), teaches a fuel cell system having one or more fuel cell groups (paragraph [0048]). Further, Moghimi teaches a controller (10) configured to control the output current of the fuel cell groups to a predetermined limit (paragraph [0088]) suggesting a manner where a fuel cell groups can be set to have the same output current. Moguimi teaches configuring the fuel cell groups to have the same output current provides a convenient way for the controller to ensure fuel cell system is operating correctly (i.e., using the predetermined function(s) provides a convenient way for the controller to ensure the fuel cell system is operating correctly.) (paragraph [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seo controller to be configured to control the first power converter and the second power converter in such a manner that the first output current to be generated by the first fuel cell group is equal to the second output current to be generated by the second fuel cell group, as suggested by Moguimi, in order to provide a convenient way for the controller to ensure fuel cell system is operating correctly.
Regarding claim 4, Seo teaches the fuel cell system as described above in claim 1 including the control device. Seo teaches the fuel cell system with applications to vehicles (paragraph [0006], [0045]-[0046]). Seo teaches the controller control the power converters (paragraph [0056]) and the power converter change output voltage of the stack module to supply output voltage (paragraph [0055]) and further teaches the power produced by the stack module is combined and converted by the inverter (paragraph [0057]). Moreover, Seo teaches controlling air supply to the fuel cell stacks (paragraph [0062]). Although Seo does not explicitly recite the limitation “at initial driving, the control device controls the first power converter and the second power converter to increase the first output current and the second output current in such a manner that the first and second powers become a predetermined power value.”, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to perform an initial driving sequence (as the system has applications in vehicles) in which the controller increases converter current to reach predetermined power levels, as controlled start-up sequences with ramping of power output are well-known and necessary to predictably ensure system stability, prevent thermal variations, and maintain appropriate gas supply conditions in fuel cell systems.
Regarding claim 5, Seo teaches an equivalent amount of oxygen- containing gas is supplied between corresponding fuel cell stacks of the fuel cell stacks in the first fuel cell group and the fuel cell stacks in the second fuel cell group through the first pipe (i.e., air flows inside the fuel supply line directly to the fuel cell stacks) (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Seo teaches a second pipe (310) through which a predetermined amount of hydrogen-containing gas is supplied between corresponding fuel cell stacks of the fuel cell stacks in the first fuel cell group and the fuel cell stacks in the second fuel cell group (paragraph 0060]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Seo teaches a third pipe (500) through which a predetermined amount of coolant is supplied between corresponding fuel cell stacks of the fuel cell stacks in the first fuel cell group and the fuel cell stacks in the second fuel cell group (paragraph [0051]-[0052]) (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, Seo teaches the fuel cell system as described above in claim 1 including the first, second and third pipe as described in claim 7. Seo is does not explicitly articulate the specifics of the pipes having an equivalent pipe diameter between corresponding fuel cell stacks of the fuel cell stacks in the first fuel cell group and the fuel cell stacks in the second fuel cell group however, selecting specific pipe diameters for gas and coolant pipes would have been an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04). The prior art perform the same function as in the claim – conveying fluids to the fuel cell stacks – and pipe diameter is a well-known engineering parameter selected based on desired flow characteristics, pressure drop, and standard size. Varying the pipe diameters, or making them equal, constitutes a predictable optimization that would have been well within the ordinary skill of an engineer designing a fuel cell system. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select or adjust pipe diameters, including making them equivalent, based on routine design consideration, thereby meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Seo teaches a first supply device (i.e., blower) (321) configured to supply the oxygen-containing gas to the first pipe (i.e., supplied air) (paragraph [0062]). As to the limitation “wherein an amount of the oxygen-containing gas to be supplied by the first supply device is controlled according to at least either the first output current or the second output current”, such limitation is considered functional in nature. As explained in MPEP 2114, such limitations are met when the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function, even if the function is not explicitly disclosed. The supply device taught by Sao is a gas-supply component that inherently provides adjustable amount of oxygen-containing gas through flow regulation or adjustment (i.e., blower) (paragraph [0018], [0060], [0062]). Such device is inherently capable of controlling or varying gas flow responsive to selected parameters including output current.
Regarding claim 10, Seo teaches a second supply device (i.e., hydrogen is supplied to the fuel stacks implying a source for supplying hydrogen is present) configured to supply the hydrogen-containing gas to the second pipe (paragraph [0060]-[0061]). As to the limitation “wherein an amount of the hydrogen-containing gas to be supplied by the second supply device is controlled according to at least either the first output current or the second output current”, such limitation is considered functional in nature. As explained in MPEP 2114, such limitations are met when the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function, even if the function is not explicitly disclosed. The supply device taught by Sao is a hydrogen-supply component that inherently provides adjustable amount of hydrogen gas through flow regulation or adjustment (i.e., valve) (paragraph [0060]-[0061]). Such device is inherently capable of controlling or varying gas flow responsive to selected parameters including output current.
Regarding claim 11, Seo teaches a third supply device (i.e., cooler) configured to supply the coolant to the third pipe (paragraph [0005], [0051]-[0053]). As to the limitation “wherein an amount of the coolant to be supplied by the third supply device is controlled according to at least either the first output current or the second output current.”, such limitation is considered functional in nature. As explained in MPEP 2114, such limitations are met when the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function, even if the function is not explicitly disclosed. The supply device taught by Sao is a coolant-supply component that inherently provides adjustable amount of coolant through flow regulation or adjustment (i.e., cooler) (paragraph [0005], [0051]-[0053]). Such device is inherently capable of controlling or varying coolant flow responsive to selected parameters including output current.
Regarding claim 12, Seo teaches the control device further controls at least any of the first supply device, the second supply device, and the third supply device (paragraph [0013], [0056])).
Regarding claim 13, Seo teaches the control device includes a first control device configured to control the first power converter and the second power converter, and a second control device configured to control at least any of the first supply device, the second supply device, and the third supply device (i.e., controller controls the stack modules, fuel supply line, cooling circulation like and converters) (paragraph [0013], [0056]), and the system further comprises a third control device configured to control the control device (i.e., one or more processors which execute algorithm steps – Note: if one or more processors are included, it is interpreted that each can control, by executing algorithms, corresponding components of the fuel cell system, e.g., stack module, fuel supply line, cooling circulation, converters, etc.) (paragraph [0064]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate:
all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 3
Applicant is encouraged to consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance.
The prior art is silent with regards to the specific configuration of the controller as recited in the instant claim in combination with the features recited on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendments to the claims, the previous claims objections and the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for antecedent basis are withdrawn from the record.
Applicant’s argument filed on 03/20/2026 are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration). The new limitations have been fully addressed above in view of Moghimi.
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 CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights