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 claims submitted 08/08/2023 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “calculating an oxide film amount” in lines 6-7 then recites in the last line “use the updated at least part of the parameters so as to calculate the oxide film amount.” Since the oxide film amount has already been calculated, it is unclear how the oxide film amount can be calculated (again?) using the updated parameters. From the specification it appears that the oxide film amount in the last line is an updated oxide film amount. The initial calculation of an oxide film amount appears to correspond to step 310, the determination appears to correspond to step 320, the updating appears to correspond to steps 340 and 350, and the second calculation appears to correspond to step 360. Therefore, the calculation of an oxide film amount in step 360 appears to a different oxide film amount than in the calculation in step 310. For the purpose of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted consistent with the above explanation. Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 (from which the instant claim depends) recites “update at least part of parameters used to calculate the oxide film amount based on a state of the fuel cell stack” and claim 2 recites “update the at least part of the parameters based on … an amount of an oxide film formed on the fuel cell stack.” If the at least part of parameters are used to calculate the oxide film amount as in claim 1, it is not clear how the at least part of the parameters can based on an amount of an oxide film. This appears self-referential as the amount of an oxide film is used to calculate the amount of the oxide film. This renders the scope of the claim unclear. See the rejection below for interpretation.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “when the fuel cell stack does not satisfy the specified condition, not update the at least part of the parameters.” However, claim 1 requires updating at least part of parameters used to calculate the oxide film amount based on a state of the fuel cell stack in lines 8-9. It is unclear what the required elements of the claim are. Is the updating required or not? For the purpose of this Office action, the limitation will be treated broadly. Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, the claims recite “a first region (P1),” “a second region (P2),” and “a third region (P3)” on a voltage-current characteristic curve (IV curve). However, it is not clear what these regions are or what they represent. Can they be any regions of an IV curve? Applicant may wish to consider paragraph [0080] of the specification as filed. Furthermore, it is not clear how the corrected concentration overpotentials are used. The concentration overpotential of the first and second regions is corrected. Then what is done with the value? Applicant may wish to consider paragraphs [0090]-[0092] of the specification as filed. For the purpose of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted broadly.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “calculating an oxide film amount for a fuel cell stack” in line 2 then recites in the last two lines “using the updated at least part of the parameters to calculate the oxide film amount.” Since the oxide film amount has already been calculated, it is unclear how the oxide film amount can be calculated (again?) using the updated parameters. From the specification it appears that the oxide film amount in the last line is an updated oxide film amount. The initial calculating of an oxide film amount appears to correspond to step 310, the determining appears to correspond to step 320, the updating appears to correspond to steps 340 and 350, and the second calculating appears to correspond to step 360. Therefore, the calculation of an oxide film amount in step 360 appears to a different oxide film amount than in the calculation in step 310. For the purpose of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted consistent with the above explanation. Claims 13-20 depend from claim 12 and are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “when the fuel cell stack does not satisfy the specified condition, not updating the at least part of the parameters.” However, claim 12 requires updating at least part of parameters used to calculate the oxide film amount based on a state of the fuel cell stack in lines 5-6. It is unclear what the required elements of the claim are. Is the updating required or not? For the purpose of this Office action, the limitation will be treated broadly. Claim 16 depends from claim 4 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “when the fuel cell stack does not satisfy the specified condition, not updating the at least part of the parameters.” However, claim 12 requires updating at least part of parameters used to calculate the oxide film amount based on a state of the fuel cell stack in lines 8-9. The claim therefore fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “when the fuel cell stack does not satisfy the specified condition, not update the at least part of the parameters.” However, claim 1 requires updating at least part of parameters used to calculate the oxide film amount based on a state of the fuel cell stack in lines 5-6. The claim therefore fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 depends from claim 4 and is rejected for the same reason.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0086890 A1 (“Ikeda”).
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).
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 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 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]).
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 6, 8, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0086890 A1 (“Ikeda”).
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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Each of US 2012/0183873 A1, US 2015/0111122 A1, US 2015/0125772 A1, US 2015/0180070 A1, JP 2013-232361 A, US 2019/0280317 A1, and US 2024/0243316 A1 discloses a fuel cell system and method where an amount of an oxide layer on a catalyst is regulated.
US 2011/0293972 A1, JP 2018-181534 A, and US 2024/0210074 A1 disclose methods of calculating concentration overpotential.
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
Prosecution Insights