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. FUEL CELL VEHICLE Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/ 244,876 Art Unit: 1727 March 11 , 2026 DETAILED ACTION The Application filed on September 11, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been fully considered . 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. Claim(s) 1 -5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Morrison et al. (US 2022/0052361 A1) . As to Claim 1, Morrison discloses a fuel cell vehicle, comprising: a fuel cell; an air tank configured to store compressed air ; and a controller configured to make a selection of using ambient air or oxygen from the tank to be supplied to the fuel cell on a basis of a pressure of the compressed air in the tank (Abstract and paragraphs [0002, 0018-0019, 0023-0024, 0030-0031]). As to Clams 2-3, Morrison discloses the same claimed structure and therefore the control device is intrinsically structurally configured to perform the claimed functions. The courts have held that f eatures of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ; and "[A] pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does ." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) , see MPEP 2114, I, II. As to Claims 4-5, Morrison discloses using a compressor to compress the air for the air tank (paragraph [0022]). In addition, Morrison discloses the same claimed structure and therefore the control device is intrinsically structurally configured to perform the claimed functions. The courts have held that f eatures of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ; and "[A] pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does ." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) , see MPEP 2114, I, II. 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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al. (US 2022/0052361 A1) in view of Lungu et al. (US 2010/0307847 A1) . As to Claims 6- 7 , Morrison discloses a running motor and a secondary battery (paragraphs [0022, 0062 and 0072]). Morrison does not specifically disclose regenerative braking. However, Lungu teaches of a fuel cell vehicle, comprising a secondary battery and a regenerative motor that is controlled to supply the power created from the regenerative motor to the system based on a charge of the battery (paragraphs [0046, 0050 and 0056]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle of Morrison to comprise the claimed regenerative motor and control thereof because Lungu teaches that energy can be regenerated and distributed as needed throughout the vehicle (Abstract and paragraphs [0049-0050]). In addition, the controller of modified Morrison is structurally the same as the claimed invention and therefore the control ler is intrinsically structurally configured to perform the claimed functions. The courts have held that f eatures of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ; and "[A] pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does ." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) , see MPEP 2114, I, II. As to Claim 8, Morrison discloses using a compressor to compress the air for the air tank (paragraph [0022]). In addition, Morrison discloses the same claimed structure and therefore the control device is intrinsically structurally configured to perform the claimed functions. The courts have held that f eatures of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ; and "[A] pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does ." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) , see MPEP 2114, I, II. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5116 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00-5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727