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
Claims 10-12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Invention II would still be practicable only through a product including a configuration corresponding to the controller of Invention I.
This is not found persuasive because Invention II does not require a controller, and thus, may be performed by a different invention other than Invention I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 07/05/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 07/05/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR 20090040748 A, hereinafter Park).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses the limitations regarding a fuel cell system (Park, Fuel cell, Claim 1) comprising:
an air pump configured to inject air into a fuel cell stack (Park, an air pump (17) installed at the air electrode inlet of the stack (13) to pump air from the atmosphere is further included, Bottom Page 4-Top Page 5, Figure 1);
a purge valve (Park, a first flow control valve (V1) is installed in the middle of the hydrogen recovery pipe (L2), and the first flow control valve (V1) is electrically connected so that it can be controlled by the controller (16), Middle Page 5, Figure 1) configured to perform hydrogen purging based on an opening degree of the purge valve (Park, the above controller (16) comprises an output unit (16c) that controls the opening and closing of each flow control valve (V1), so the first flow control valve (V1) and the second flow control valve (V2) are opened for a certain period of time to discharge waste gas and water, Top Page 6, Top Page 8, Figure 1); and
a controller configured to calculate a cumulative current of the fuel cell stack (Park, the above controller (16) comprises a calculation unit (16b) that calculates the accumulated current amount by multiplying the current input to the input unit (16a) by time, Bottom Page 5, Figure 1) and
perform at least one of a first operation of controlling a number of rotations of the air pump based on the cumulative current (Park, the air pump (17) is electrically connected to the controller (16), and the controller comprises an output unit (16c) that controls the pumping amount of the air pump (17), Bottom Page 5 - Top Page 6)
a second operation of controlling the opening degree of the purge valve, or a combination of the first operation and the second operation (Park, an output unit (16c) controls the opening and closing of each flow control valve, and the first flow control valve (V1) and the second flow control valve (V2) are opened for a certain period of time to discharge waste gas and water, Top Page 6, Top Page 8).
Regarding Claim 2, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Park discloses the limitations regarding a fuel cell system (Park, Fuel cell, Claim 1), wherein the controller is configured to reduce the number of rotations of the air pump in response to a result that the cumulative current is greater than or equal to a first value (Park, for the section in which the pumping amount of the air pump (17) are increased, the judgment process in the controller (16), which detects the accumulated current amount (C), compares it with the set value (C1), and issues a command based on this, may be temporarily suspended or may continue in real time, Bottom Page 7; the Examiner notes that the disclosed accumulated amount (C) corresponds to the claimed cumulative current and the disclosed set value (C1) corresponds to the claimed first value and is directed towards the air pump).
Regarding Claim 3, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Park discloses the limitations regarding a fuel cell system (Park, Fuel cell, Claim 1), wherein the controller is configured to control the purge valve by opening the purge valve to cause the purge valve to perform the hydrogen purging in response to a result that the cumulative current is greater than or equal to a reference value (Park, if the accumulated current amount (C) is greater than the set value (C1), it is determined that a large amount of water or waste gas has been generated in the stack (13), and the first flow control valve (V1) and the second flow control valve (V2) are opened for a certain period of time to discharge waste gas and water, Top Page 8; the Examiner notes that the reference value corresponds to C1 and is directed towards the first flow control valve, or purge valve).
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) 4-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20090040748 A, hereinafter Park), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20190190042 A1, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 4, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Park discloses the limitations regarding a fuel cell system (Park, Fuel cell, Claim 1). Park is silent regarding the reference value is set greater than the first value.
Kim discloses a fuel cell system (Kim, fuel cell stack, Abstract) comprising a controller (Kim, a higher hydrogen purge controller configured to estimate an air supply rate supplied to a fuel cell stack and to execute hydrogen purge based on the estimated air supply rate, [0016]) wherein the reference value (Kim, the executing of hydrogen purge may include comparing the estimated air supply rate and a predetermined first air flow, and when the estimated air supply rate is equal to or greater than the predetermined first air flow, hydrogen purge may be executed at the timing when hydrogen purge is required, and during the driving of a fuel cell, a timing when hydrogen purge is required may be determined by stack current integration, [0012, 0042]; the Examiner notes that the predetermined air flow can be based on current, so the estimated air supply rate can also be based on current since current causes air to be supplied) is set greater than (Kim, hydrogen purge performance/termination S300 occurs after air supply restriction S200, Figure 3; the Examiner notes that hydrogen purge performance/termination requires a higher current value than air supply rate hydrogen performance/termination occurs after air supply restriction)
the first value (Kim, the adjusting of the air supply rate may include setting a target air supply rate and adjusting an opening degree of an air control valve or a revolutions per minute (RPM) of an air compressor to cause the air supply rate to correspond the target air supply rate, The air flow required by the fuel cell stack may be set to an air flow required for power generation of a fuel cell stack based on current, [0050]).
The Examiner notes that the reference value corresponds to hydrogen purge activation and the first value corresponds to air pump restriction.
Kim teaches that a method of providing hydrogen purge to prevent purged hydrogen from flowing backward to an air electrode when hydrogen purge is performed because while an air flow is decreased substantially, purged hydrogen flows backward to temporarily drop a stack voltage thus substantially affecting energy efficiency and the productivity of a fuel cell vehicle (Kim, [0010]).
Park and Kim are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a fuel cell comprising a purging system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the set value of Park to correspond to the hydrogen purge and air pump supply rate of Kim, in order to prevent purged hydrogen from flowing backward to an air electrode and improve energy efficiency and the productivity of a fuel cell vehicle.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park discloses the limitations regarding a fuel cell system (Park, Fuel cell, Claim 1), wherein the controller is configured to adjust the reference value based on an output efficiency of the fuel cell stack (Kim, The target air supply rate and the predetermined second air flow may be set in consideration of an air flow that is currently required by a fuel cell stack and an oxygen amount to be consumed as purged hydrogen flows backward, [0050]; the Examiner notes that the target air supply rate considers the currently required air flow rate, which corresponds to the output efficiency).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park discloses the limitations regarding a fuel cell system (Park, Fuel cell, Claim 1), wherein the controller is configured to adjust the first value based on the reference value (Kim, estimating an air supply rate supplied to a fuel cell stack (S200), and controlling hydrogen purge based on the estimated air supply rate (S300 and S500), [0041]).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20090040748 A, hereinafter Park), in view of Kim et al. (US 20190190042 A1, hereinafter Kim), as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of Igarashi et al. (US 20100196771 A1, hereinafter Igarashi).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park discloses the limitations regarding a fuel cell system (Park, Fuel cell, Claim 1), Modified Park is silent regarding the controller is configured to determine a reference efficiency based on the output efficiency.
Igarashi discloses a fuel cell system (Igarashi, fuel cell system, Abstract), wherein the controller is configured to determine a reference efficiency (Igarashi, the nitrogen content in the fuel electrode and the hydrogen circulation channel L2 can be controlled while maintaining the power generation performance and circulation performance at desired levels, [0033]; Figure 1) based on the output efficiency (Igarashi, the control unit 40 performs various computations on the basis of the status of the system, outputs the computed results as control outputs to various actuators and controls various elements including the purge valve 13, the hydrogen regulator valve 11, the hydrogen circulation pump 12 and the load 2. In order to detect the status of the system, various signals from sensors and the like are input as the control inputs into the control unit 40, [0038]; Figure 1).
Igarashi teaches if the impurity content, e.g., the nitrogen content, is excessively high, the output of the fuel cell stack 1 may decrease and circulation of hydrogen by the hydrogen circulation pump 12 may be obstructed, resulting in unstable power generation, so the amount of nitrogen discharged outside through the waste discharge channel L3 can be adjusted by adjusting the opening of the purge valve 13 (Igarashi, [0033]; Figure 1).
The Examiner notes that the controller of Igarashi uses various signals from sensors and the like are input as the control inputs into the control unit 40 in order to perform computations on the basis of the status of the system, corresponding to the claimed output efficiency, in order to control various elements including the purge valve 13, the hydrogen regulator valve 11, the hydrogen circulation pump 12 and the load 2 to allow the fuel cell to maintain the power generation performance and circulation performance at desired levels, corresponding to the claimed reference efficiency.
Modified Park and Igarashi are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a fuel cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the controller system of Igarashi that uses various signals from sensors and the like are input as the control inputs into the control unit in order to perform computations on the basis of the status of the system to control the control valves of modified Park, in order to maintain the power generation performance and circulation performance at desired levels.
Regarding Claim 7, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Park discloses the limitations regarding a fuel cell system (Park, Fuel cell, Claim 1), wherein the controller is configured to adjust the reference value from a second value to a third value (Igarashi, when the target control value Na is set to the maximum efficiency nitrogen content Nmax and the opening of the purge valve 13 is controlled on the basis of the maximum efficiency nitrogen content Nmax, the fuel efficiency under the normal power generation mode can be improved, [0057], the Examiner notes that the Nmin corresponds to the claimed second value and the Nmax corresponds to the claimed third value)
in response to a result that the output efficiency is greater than or equal to the reference efficiency (Igarashi, when the probability that the driving mode is going to be switched to the idle mode is low, the target control value Na is set to be the maximum efficiency nitrogen content Nmax to improve the fuel efficiency under normal power generation mode, [0060]), and
wherein the third value is set greater than the second value (Igarashi, the maximum efficiency nitrogen content Nmax is larger than Nmin, [0067]).
Regarding Claim 8, Park discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Park discloses the limitations regarding a fuel cell system (Park, Fuel cell, Claim 1), wherein the controller is configured to adjust the reference value from the third value to the second value in response to a result that the output efficiency is less than the reference efficiency after being equal to or greater than the reference efficiency (Igarashi, in such a case where the possibility of switching to the idle mode is high, the target control value Na is set to be the minimum nitrogen content Nmin so that the nitrogen content in the hydrogen circulation channel L2 and the fuel electrode can be adjusted to decrease over time, [0061]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 ET.
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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights