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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4 and 6 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. Each of these claims recites the phrases “a return from reactivation of the fuel cell” and “determines that a return is brought.” The meaning of each phrase is unclear and consequently the claims are unclear. From the specification, “return” appears to relate to a benefit or cost savings. Correction is required. The claims have been interpreted as best they are understood 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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6502562B. The reference is directed to a fuel cell device comprising a fuel cell (22), a tank (32) that stores hot water that is heated with waste heat of the fuel cell (via heat exchanger 30), a first electronic device (remote control panel 46), and a controller (16) (see Fig. 1, [0032]). The controller is configured to provide a notification to a user on the first electronic device when the fuel cell is in an inactive state ([0078], [0081]). The controller also controls the first electronic device, such that the first electronic device is configured to make hot water that is heated with exhaust heat of the fuel cell be discharged in response to an operation of the user, as claimed (that is, the remote panel 46 allows the user to control the system (switch the power source, set a temperature etc) such that hot water is supplied to and discharged from heat exchanger 30 to replenish hot water in tank 32), see [0070], [0074], [0075], Fig. 1). Regarding claim 7, the first electronic device is a water heater remote controller installed indoors.
The reference does not expressly teach that the controller is configured to, when the fuel cell is not reactivated after display of the notification and the user operates the first electronic device, make the first electronic device provide a notification with at least one of a warning sound and warning display as claimed.
However, the invention as a whole would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the reference guides the artisan to perform this step. In [0078]-[0085] the provision of a notification is disclosed. The reference teaches the following in [0086] and [0087]: “Therefore, in the present exemplary embodiment, a message is displayed to increase the degree of recognition by the notification to the user. Note that the notification of the message is not limited to the display, and may be another notification form such as notification by voice or light emission of a warning lamp, or may be a combination of a plurality of notification forms. Further, the timing of the notification may be carefully selected such that the notification is performed when the user passes through the vicinity of the remote control panel 46 by a human sensor or the like when the notification for prompting the power generation is necessary.”
Although it is not expressly taught that a warning sound or display is made after a first notification, the teachings of the reference would lead a skilled person to this. It is clearly a purpose of the invention to get a user’s attention of the inactive fuel cell, in one case by using a human sensor to automatically display a notification on the panel 46. It would have been obvious to perform the claimed control step of, when the fuel cell is not reactivated after display of the notification and the user operates the first electronic device, making the first electronic device provide a notification with at least one of a warning sound and warning display in furtherance of the purposes of the invention of JP ‘562.
Regarding claim 2, this claim recites a second electronic device (e.g., smart phone) that communicates with the first device. The claim further recites that the controller is configured to, in response an elapse of a predetermined period since the start of the inactive state, make the first device transmit information to the second device.
This subject matter is also rendered obvious on the basis that it is first obvious to for a user to employ a smart phone in communication with household electronic devices and/or control panels (thermostats, sensors, home security systems, etc). Such arrangements are well known in the art and commercially available. Further, in keeping with the purpose of JP ‘562, it would be obvious to program to the controller to send messages from the first device to the second device to make the user even more aware of the desired messaging (for example, if the user is not near or does not check the first device). The use of such notifications on smart phones is also well known in the art and it would have been an obvious modification to so in this case. Regarding claim 5 which recites a mobile communication terminal (e.g., smart phone), this claim is also rendered obvious as stated above.
Claim 3, which recites that the controller is configured to repeatedly transmit, for a predetermined number of times the information (push notification) to the second device, is rendered obvious for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, these claims recite that the controller is configured to calculate “a return” from reactivation of the fuel cell and provide a notification to the second device or make the first device provide a warning sound or display. Such subject matter is also deemed obvious in light of the teachings of the reference in [0078]-[0080] relating to the status of buying and selling power, and that the controller controls power source from the fuel cell to a commercial power source 60 using switch 62 (Fig. 1, [0052]). The reference indicates that power generation by fuel cell is preferable except under certain considerations, including balance with commercial power supply ([0080]). It would have been obvious to program the controller to calculate “a return” (economic advantage) from reactivation of the fuel cell and provide a notification to the second device or make the first device provide a warning sound or display, (and in the case of claim 4, after a predetermined time has elapsed) as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
December 23, 2025