DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Applicant’s amendments submitted on 12/2/25 have been received. Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, and 20 have been amended. Claims 5-7 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 are new.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “determining an age of a fuel cell stack in the fuel cell stack by an age counter a controller” in lines 9-10 includes a drafting error. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “determining an age of a fuel cell stack in the fuel cell stack by an age counter, a controller”. Appropriate correction is required.
4. Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “while a the weak fuel cell” in line 6 includes a drafting error. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “while the weak fuel cell”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation “a controller” in line 1. It is not clear whether it is the same or different controller as recited in claim 1 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the controller”.
7. Claims 9 and 18 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.
8. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the health of the fuel cell stack" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the state of health of the fuel cell stack" as there is antecedent basis.
9. Claims 10 and 11-12 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 10 recites the limitation “a controller” in line 2. It is not clear whether it is the same or different controller as recited in claim 1 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the controller”.
10. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected as depending from claim 10.
11. Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "a fuel cell stack operating state" in lines 1-2. It is not clear whether it is the same or different fuel cell stack operating state as recited in claim 10 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the fuel cell stack operating state".
12. Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation “a controller” in line 2. It is not clear whether it is the same or different controller as recited in claim 1 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the controller”.
13. Claim 16 is 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 16 recites the limitation “a controller” in line 2. It is not clear whether it is the same or different controller as recited in claim 1 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the controller”.
14. Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation “a controller” in line 2. It is not clear whether it is the same or different controller as recited in claim 1 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the controller”.
15. Claim 18 recites the limitation "tracking the health of the fuel cell stack" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "tracking the state of health of the fuel cell stack" as there is antecedent basis.
16. Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation “a controller” in line 2. It is not clear whether it is the same or different controller as recited in claim 1 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the controller”.
17. Claim 23 is 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 23 recites the limitation “a controller” in line 1. It is not clear whether it is the same or different controller as recited in claim 21 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the controller”.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the invention in independent claim 1 would be allowable when the objection set forth in this Office Action on claim 1 is overcome. Previously indicated allowable subject matter was incorporated into independent claim 1. The reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are substantially the same as provided in the Office Action mailed 10/6/25 and apply herein.
19. Claims 2-4, and 8-20 are objected to as being dependent upon independent claim 1 indicated as allowable and would be allowable when the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action on claims 4, 9-12, and 15-19 is overcome.
20. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the invention in independent claim 21 would be allowable when the objection set forth in this Office Action on claim 21 is overcome. Previously indicated allowable subject matter was incorporated into independent claim 21. The reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are substantially the same as provided in the Office Action mailed 10/6/25 and apply herein.
21. Claims 22 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon independent claim 21 indicated as allowable and would be allowable when the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action on claim 23 is overcome.
Response to Arguments
22. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-15, filed 12/2/25, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
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 VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724