DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. 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 2. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 3. Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 recites the limitation “ a purge valve” in line 3. It is not clear whether it is the same or different purge valve recited in claims 1 and 2 from which it depends. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 4 . 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. 5 . 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. 6 . Claim(s) 1 -5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Katano (US 2012/03089080 as cited in IDS dated 5/11/23 . Regarding claim 1 , Katano discloses a method for protecting components of a fuel cell system (1) ([0008]-[0009], Figs. 1 and 3) , the fuel cell system (1) having a fuel cell stack (101) (100, Fig. 1) , an air path (10) (air supply flow path 210, Fig. 1) , an off-gas line (12) (air exhaust flow path 220, Fig. 1) , and a fuel line (20) (hydrogen supply flow path 310, Fig. 1) with a recirculation circuit (50) (circulating flow path 330, Fig. 1) , the method comprising the steps of: monitoring the air path (10) for a fault (w hen a stop command is given to the fuel cell system 10, for example, by operation of an ignition switch, the control unit 400 controls the air compressor 212 with monitoring the flow rate Q of the air by the air flow meter 216, [0041]) ; closing a first valve (61) (reed valve 214, Fig. 1) which is situated in the air path (10) and closing a second valve (62) (pressure regulating valve 222, Fig. 1) which is situated in the off-gas line (12) (Figs. 3 and 4, [0040]-[004 5 ]) ; blocking a purge valve (41) (purge valve 322, Fig. 1, [0044]) ; reducing a pressure in the air path (10) upstream of the first valve (61) ([0042]-[0044]) ; if further operation of the fuel cell system (1) is possible (t he control unit 400 is a device for controlling the operations of the fuel cell system 10 and is connected with the various sensors (i.e., air flow meter 216, air pressure sensor 224 and hydrogen pressure sensor 314) and the various actuators (air compressor 212, pressure regulating valve 222, bypass valve 232, injector 312, circulation pump 332 and purge valve 322 , [0037] ) : increasing the pressure in the air path (10) upstream of the first valve (61) ([0030]-[0031]) ; unblocking the purge valve (41) ([0035]-[0036] ) ; opening the first valve (61) and the second valve (62) ([0031]-[0032]) ; further operating the fuel cell system (1) ([0028]-[0037]) . The Examiner notes further operation of the fuel cell system is possible as an air shutoff process is performed when a stop command is given to the fuel cell system, for example, by operation of an ignition switch and opening the valves to start the fuel cell system is viable. Regarding claim 2 , Katano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Katano further discloses the pressure in the air path (10) is stored between the first valve (61) and the fuel cell stack (101) at a time of closing the first valve (61) and the second valve (62) (Fig. 4, [0037]) . Regarding claim 3 , Katano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Katano further discloses a bypass valve (65) (bypass valve 232, Fig. 1) is opened in order to reduce the pressure in the air path (10), so that air can flow from the air path (10) into the off-gas line (12) via a bypass line (66) (bypass flow path 230, Fig. 1, [0043]) . Regarding claim 4 , Katano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Katano further discloses further valves and/or throttle valves and/or a turbine bypass are opened in the air path (10) and/or in the off-gas line (12) in order to reduce the pressure in the air path (10) (shutoff valve 226, Fig. 7, [0055]) . Regarding claim 5 , Katano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Katano further discloses in order to reduce the pressure in the air path (10), a capacity of an air compressor (11) is reduced or stopped (claim 9) . Regarding claim 8 , Katano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Katano further discloses a reduction of a pressure level in the recirculation circuit (50) is accomplished by an opening of a purge valve (41) ([0036]) , so that the pressure level in the recirculation circuit (50) is reduced to a pressure level in a blocked region (63) plus an offset ([0010], [0047]) . The Examiner notes a broad and reasonable interpretation of a blocked region is any region where a valve is closed. Regarding claim 9 , Katano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Katano further discloses in order to increase the pressure in the air path (10), a bypass valve (65) is closed and/or further valves and/or throttle valves and/or a turbine bypass in the air path (10) and/or an off-gas line (12) are closed ( bypass valve 232, Fig. 1, [0040]) . Regarding claim 10 , Katano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Katano further discloses in order to increase the pressure in the air path (10), a capacity of an air compressor (11) is increased ([0031]) . The Examiner notes when further operation of the fuel cell is possible, the opposite of the controller closes the pressure regulating valve when a rotating speed of the air compressor or an amount of supply of the air by the air compressor decreases to or below a specified level (Katano, claim 9) is viable . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7 . 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. 8 . Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano (US 2012/03089080 as cited in IDS dated 5/11/23 as applied to claim s 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Matsusue (US 2015/0311543) . Regarding claim 6 , Katano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Katano does not explicitly disclose prior to opening the first valve (61) and second valve (62), a pressure level of the air path (10) upstream of the first valve (61) is adjusted to a pressure level in a blocked region (63). Matsusue teaches a fuel cell system and a control method thereof ([0003]) . Matsusue teaches t he air flow meter 33 measures, in an upstream of the air compressor 32, an amount of the external air taken into the air compressor 32, and transmits a measured value to the controller 20 ([0033], Fig. 1) . Matsusue teaches t he pressure measuring portion 35 measures a pressure of the air supplied to the fuel cell 10, and transmits a measured value to the controller 20 ([0033]) . Matsusue teaches t he controller 20 drives the air compressor 32 and a pressure regulating valve 43 of the cathode gas exhaust system 40 based on the measured values, so as to control an air supply amount and a pressure to the fuel cell 10 ([0033]) . Matsusue teaches t he opening/closing valve 34 is generally in a closed state, and when the air having a predetermined pressure is supplied from the air compressor 32 to the cathode gas pipe 31, the opening/closing valve 34 is opened ([0033]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Katano with prior to opening the first valve and second valve, a pressure level of the air path is adjusted to a pressure level in a blocked region as taught by Matsusue as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143. The Examiner notes a broad and reasonable interpretation of a blocked region is any region where a valve is closed. 9 . Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano (US 2012/03089080 as cited in IDS dated 5/11/23 and further in view of Matsusue (US 2015/0311543) as applied to claims 1 , 2, and 6 above, further in view of Maier et al. (DE102009048247) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action. Regarding claim 7 , modified Katano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Katano does not explicitly disclose the adjustment of the pressure level is accomplished by a clocked opening of the first valve (61) and/or the second valve (62). Maier teaches a method for operating a fuel cell system ( p. 2, line 1 ). Maier teaches t he valve device thus only assumes its open state when the fuel cell system is in operation and no pressure difference or a pressure drop that falls in the direction of the anode side is given across the valve device ( p. 3, lines 5-7 ) . Maier teaches the valve device is opened in clocked fashion in the opened state ( p. 3, lines 34-35) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Katano with the adjustment of the pressure level is accomplished by a clocked opening of the first valve and/or the second valve as taught by Maier as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0489 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F . 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 Miriam Stagg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5256 . 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. /VICTORIA H LYNCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724