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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/21/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application, of claims 14-15 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-13 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-8 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 4 and 9, it is suggested to amend “capable of controlling” to - -configured to control- -.
In claim 1, lines 7-8, it is suggested to amend “the fuel cell stacks corresponding respectively to the fuel cell stacks in the first fuel cell group” to - -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- -.
In claim 1, lines 13-14, it is suggested to amend “ 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.” to - -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- -.
In claim 3, line 1, it is suggested to amend “the control device controls” to - -the control device is configured to control- -.
In claim 4, lines 1-2, it is suggested to amend “the control device controls” to - -the control device is configured to control- -.
In claims 5-8, lines 2-4, it is suggested to amend “ 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.” to - -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- -.
In claim 12, line 1, it is suggested to amend “further controls” to - -is further configured to control- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-13 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the control device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “a control device” is first recited in claim 2 however, claim 12 is not ultimately dependent on claim 2.
Regarding dependent claims 13, the claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 12 noted above, and is therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0328248).
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) capable of controlling 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 fuel cell stacks corresponding respectively to the fuel cell stacks in the first fuel cell group (see figure 5);
a second power converter (710) capable of controlling 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 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]).
PNG
media_image1.png
429
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Seo teaches the fuel cell system further comprising a control device (i.e., controller) (paragraph [0013]) configured to control the first power converter and the second power converter (i.e., controller control all components) (paragraph [0056]) in such a manner that the first output current and the second output current become their predetermined values (i.e., maintain the stack modules at a predetermined rated power) (paragraph [0059) (i.e., optimal control is possible by controlling the flow rate of hydrogen) (paragraph [0061]).
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 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]).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0328248).
Regarding claim 3, Seo teaches the fuel cell system as described above in claim 1 including the control device. 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 “control device controls the first power converter and the second power converter so as to match the first and second powers with a predetermined power value, while controlling the first output current and the second output current to correspond to the oxygen-containing gas to be supplied”, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to regulate the output current of the converters to predetermined operational setpoints to predictably ensure stable power delivery and proper coordination of multiple stacks, which are standard objectives in fuel cell power management. A controller detects and control system states and selectively operate stacks modules would inherently be capable of regulating converter output parameters to desired values.
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 fuel cell system as described above in claim 1 including the control device. 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 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 ensure predictably ensure system stability, prevent thermal variations, and maintain appropriate gas supply conditions in fuel cell systems.
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.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0059220). Kim teaches a fuel cell system (abstract) with first fuel cell group (11) and a second fuel cell group (12), each with a power converter (21, 22 respectively) (paragraph [0031]).
Correspondence
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, MILTON I. CANO can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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