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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 2-3 in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 4-6 and 11-13 are currently withdrawn.
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) 1-3, 7-10, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bunzel et al (DE102009052443).
Regarding claim 1, Bunzel teaches a fuel cell arrangement for a vehicle comprising a plurality of independently mountable functional units which are coupled to one another during operation of a fuel cell system. The fuel cell arrangement comprises a support frame which can be coupled to the vehicle and has predefined receiving regions for the functional units (figures 1 and 2, 0018-0028). The functional units are considered to be the instantly claimed submodules M1 and M2. The predefined receiving regions are considered to be the inner component support. The support frame being coupled to the vehicle is considered to be a teaching of the securing interface, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Bunzel shows that the holding frame 8 comprises the pre-determined retaining area and the functional units are fixed at the retaining area (figures 1 and 2, 0018-0028). The figures show only one continuous inner support.
Regarding claim 3, Bunzel shows that the holding frame 8 comprises the pre-determined retaining area and the functional units are fixed at the retaining area (figures 1 and 2, 0018-0028). This is considered to show the instantly claimed connection point as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Bunzel teaches the functional units are arranged in the holding frame making it possible to assemble and disassemble easily and independently of one another (0006 and 0018-0028).
Regarding claim 8, Figures 1 and 2 of Bunzel show first and second transverse beams which are considered to function as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Figures 1 and 2 of Bunzel show first and second transverse beams which are shown to include areas which would be considered securing means, as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Bunzel teaches a fuel cell arrangement for a vehicle comprising a plurality of independently mountable functional units which are coupled to one another during operation of a fuel cell system. The fuel cell arrangement comprises a support frame which can be coupled to the vehicle and has predefined receiving regions for the functional units (figures 1 and 2, 0018-0028). The functional units are considered to be the instantly claimed submodules M1 and M2. The predefined receiving regions are considered to be the inner component support. The support frame being coupled to the vehicle is considered to be a teaching of the securing interface, as claimed.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Bunzel teaches the functional units are arranged in the holding frame making it possible to assemble and disassemble easily and independently of one another (0006 and 0018-0028). This is considered to constitute the instantly claimed form-fit or force-fit as claimed as the functional units are shown to fit within the receiving areas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/SARAH A. SLIFKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 March 4, 2026