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 the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 07/29/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-4, 9, 12-15, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are examined herein.
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, 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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0086890 A1 (“Ikeda”) in view of US 2018/0294498 A1 (“Suh”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Ikeda discloses a fuel cell system 10 and operating method of the fuel cell system (Abstract; Figs. 1, 3). The fuel cell system 10 comprises a fuel cell stack 20 configured to generate power by using a reactive gas ([0037]) and a controller 60 operatively connected to the fuel cell stack and configured to perform a catalyst refresh operation of the fuel cell stack 20 (Fig. 1; [0060]).
The controller is configured to determine whether catalyst refreshing is necessary in step S1. In step S1, a judgment is made as to whether or not the amount of type-II oxide film in the oxide film formed on the platinum catalyst surface of the catalyst layer 24a is equal to or greater than a predetermined amount A (Fig. 3; [0076]). As shown in Fig. 3, the process repeats after a judgement result in step S1 of “No.” Moreover, Ikeda discloses the controller 60 judges the need for the refresh processing at predetermined control intervals, for example at timings t1, t2 and t3 in Fig. 3, timings t11 and t12 in Fig. 6, and timing t21 in Fig. 8 ([0060]-[0061], [0076]). The parameters used to calculate the oxide film amount are updated based on a state of the fuel cell stack (see, for example, the examples of estimation means (1) to (4) in [0114]-[0128]). An updated oxide film amount is calculated using the updated parameters (step S1).
Ikeda does not expressly disclose the at least part of the parameters comprises a variable parameter affected by the state of the fuel cell stack, the variable parameter includes at least one of a transfer coefficient (α) or a limit current density (iL), and the controller is configured to update a value of the variable parameter to a value corresponding to the state of the fuel cell stack.
Suh discloses a method and system for controlling a stop mode of a fuel cell (Abstract). The method includes calculating the degree of deterioration of a fuel cell, such as a degree of oxidation of cathode platinum catalyst ([0054]). The calculation includes transfer coefficients for PtOx formation ([0058]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the degree of oxidation of the catalyst (analogous to the claimed oxide film) using the method taught by Suh because it would involve combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results in view of Ikeda and Suh. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 13-14, Ikeda discloses the fuel cell system of claim 1 and the operating method of claim 12. Ikeda further discloses the estimation means for estimating the amount of oxide film (4) includes the exchange current density and temperature.
Regarding claims 4-5, Ikeda discloses the fuel cell system of claim 1. The instant claim 4 contains a contingent limitation. It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II). Ikeda further discloses the need for the refresh processing is determined during idling operation ([0074], [0076]) and intermittent operation ([0107]-[0109]). During the determination, the parameters are updated and the amount oxide film is updated.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Ikeda discloses the fuel cell system of claim 1 and the operating method of claim 12. Ikeda does not expressly disclose that while the fuel cell stack is operating, continuously updating the at least part of the parameters based on the state of the fuel cell stack. However, Ikeda discloses one of the means of estimating the amount of oxide film is based on an equation ([0118]-[0128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to continuously update the parameters in the equation during operation so that the catalyst refresh operation is not unnecessarily delayed as an increased oxide film degrades performance of the catalyst layer ([0059], [0064]).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Ikeda discloses the fuel cell system of claim 1 and the operating method of claim 12. Ikeda discloses that there are additional steps of checking the effect of the refresh processing after the process in step S5 and performing refresh processing with a refresh voltage that is set lower than the voltage set in step S3 as an additional process that is performed when the effect of the refresh processing is insufficient ([0129]-[0131]). This reads on the claimed updating a catalyst refresh potential.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Ikeda discloses the fuel cell system of claim 7 and the operating method of claim 18. Ikeda discloses estimating the amount of performance restoration of the catalyst layer after performing performance restoration processing, and performing, when the estimated amount of performance restoration is equal to or smaller than a predetermined amount E, being a predetermined threshold value (where the predetermined amount E<the predetermined amount C), another performance restoration processing with a set voltage being set lower than a previously set voltage ([0130]). Ikeda differs from the claims in that the claims recite calculating a residual film amount while Ikeda calculates an estimated amount of performance restoration. However, given that Ikeda directly links the performance degradation of the catalyst layer with the amount of the oxide film ([0064]), the claims would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Ikeda establishes the link between the performance degradation and the amount of the oxide film.
Regarding claims 10-11, Ikeda discloses the fuel cell system of claim 1. Ikeda further discloses a fuel cell vehicle comprising the fuel cell system ([0037]).
Regarding claims 15-16, Ikeda discloses the operating method of claim 12. The instant claim 4 contains a contingent limitation. It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II). In this case, the claim encompasses two methods, one in which the fuel cell stack satisfies a specified condition and one in which the fuel cell stack does not satisfy the specified condition. Ikeda further discloses the need for the refresh processing is determined during idling operation ([0074], [0076]) and intermittent operation ([0107]-[0109]). During the determination, the parameters are updated and the amount oxide film is updated. Ikeda further discloses a scavenging operation during which the judgement is not made ([0111]-[0112]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
US 2011/0293972 A1, JP 2018-181534 A, and US 2024/0210074 A1 disclose methods of calculating concentration overpotential. The prior art does not disclose or render obvious the fuel cell system of claim 9 or the method of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 9-10, filed 07/29/2026, with respect to the 112(b)/(d) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) and claims 4-5 and 15-16 under 35 USC 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 10-12, filed 07/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 or 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2018/0294498 A1 (“Suh”).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
