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 Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on July 7, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 7, 2026
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control unit...configured to… ” in claims 1-4 and 6-9 wherein the corresponding structure is shown in Fig. 1, #50.
“a pressure-detecting unit…configured to detect a pressure of exhaust air flowing into the turbine…” in claim 1 where the corresponding structure is pressure sensors (Para. [0015]).
“a temperature-detecting unit…for detecting the temperature of exhaust air flowing into the turbine…” in claim 2 wherein the corresponding structure is a temperature sensor (Para. [0028]).
The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." See MPEP 2181(I)A.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4-5 and 7-9 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 4 recites “the determination” and “the momentary mass flow”
Claim 5 recites: “the pressure drop”
Claim 7 recites: "the known pressure drop characteristic” and “the exhaust air system"
Claim 8 recites: “the minimum mass flow” and “the shortfall of a boundary line”
Claim 9 recites “the measured pressure” and “the measured temperature”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 4-5 and 7-8 are dependent upon claim 1, which does provide sufficient antecedent basis for the cited limitations.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heinrich et al. (US 2019/0036133).
Regarding Claim 1, Heinrich et al. teaches a fuel cell system (Fig. 1, #100) having a fuel cell stack (Fig. 1, #10) (i.e. at least one fuel cell), a cathode supply path (Fig. 1, #31) (i.e. an oxidant line) a compressor (Fig. 1, #33), a cathode exhaust path (Fig. 1, #32) (i.e. an exhaust-air line), a turbine (Fig. 1, #36) which is arranged on the cathode exhaust path and the compressor may be drive by a turbine supported via a common shaft (Para. [0038]) (i.e. and is coupled to the compressor), an anode exhaust gas path (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. an anode-purging line, which is connected to the cathode exhaust path/exhaust-air line), and has a flushing valve (Fig. 1, #28) (i.e. an anode-purging valve), and a control device (Fig. 1, #50) (i.e. a control unit) which contains suitable sensors providing input pressure and output pressure of the gas mixture which are ascertained upstream or downstream of the delivery device (Para. [0042]) (i.e. a pressure-detecting unit comprises pressure sensors and is coupled to a component lying upstream and thus, configured to detect a pressure of the exhaust air flowing into the turbine and configured to ascertain a reduced mass flow of the exhaust air from the pressure upstream of the turbine and a specified turbine characteristic map via the sensor downstream of the delivery device) and wherein the control device controls the flushing valve (Para. [0041], [0042]) which controls the flow of the flushing line to the cathode exhaust path and thus, configured to activate the turbine and capable of achieving a maximum water flow concentration (as the control unit controls the flow of the flushing line).
Regarding Claim 2, Heinrich et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Heinrich et al. further teaches the control device contains suitable sensors providing input temperature and output temperature of the gas mixture which are ascertained upstream or downstream of the delivery device (Para. [0042]) (i.e. a temperature-detecting unit comprises temperature sensors and is coupled to a component lying upstream and thus, configured to detect a temperature of the exhaust air flowing into the turbine) and a calculation takes place of the volumetric flow (Para. [0046]) (i.e. capable of determining an absolute mass flow from a reduced mass flow knowing the temperature).
Regarding Claim 3, Heinrich et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Heinrich et al. further teaches an anode exhaust gas path (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. an anode-purging line, which is connected to the cathode exhaust path/exhaust-air line), and has a flushing valve (Fig. 1, #28) (i.e. an anode-purging valve), wherein the control device corresponding controls the flushing valve depending on the ascertained content of hydrogen (or nitrogen) in the recirculated gas mixture (Para. [0041], [0042]) (i.e. wherein the control unit is configured to activate the anode-purging valve and to regulate the mass flow when purging an anode of the at least one fuel cell).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinrich et al. (US 2019/0036133) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farnsworth et al. (US 2019/0181475).
Regarding Claim 4, Heinrich et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Heinrich et al. further teaches the compression which is drive mainly by an electric motor (Para. [0038]) (i.e. wherein the compressor is additionally connected to an electric motor).
Heinrich et al. does not teach the electric motor is configured to provide a speed signal, and in that the control unit (54) is configured to support the determination of the momentary mass flow with the speed signal.
However, Farnsworth et al. teaches a fuel cell circuit comprising a compressor (Para. [0040]) wherein the compressor has a motor (Para. [0043]) and a controller of the ECU (electronic control unit) which stores a speed map in a memory (Para. [0084], [0085]) corresponding to different speeds of the compressor (Para. [0086]) and the ECU may select the set of compressor flow maps when the compressor speed is intended to increase or decrease (Para. [0090]) (i.e. the electric motor is configured to provide a speed signal, and in that the control unit (54) is configured to support the determination of the momentary mass flow with the speed signal).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller and electric motor of Heinrich et al. to incorporate the teaching of a controller which stores a speed map in a memory corresponding to different speeds of the compressor and the controller may select the set of compressor flow maps when the compressor speed is intended to increase or decrease as taught by Farnsworth et al., as it is desirable to control the state changes of the compressor such that any current state remains within an acceptable region (Para. [0087]).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinrich et al. (US 2019/0036133) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayase (US 2019/0131642).
Regarding Claim 5, Heinrich et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Heinrich et al. further teaches and a control device (Fig. 1, #50) (i.e. a control unit) which contains suitable sensors providing input pressure and output pressure of the gas mixture which are ascertained upstream or downstream of the delivery device (Para. [0042]) (i.e. wherein the pressure-detecting unit comprises two pressure sensors).
Heinrich et al. does not teach the pressure-detecting unit is configured for detecting the pressure drop between the turbine input and a turbine output.
However, Hayase teaches a cathode gas discharge system from a fuel cell comprising a turbine (Para. [0049]) wherein a pressure P4 of the cathode off-gas at the inlet of the turbine to a pressure P6 of the cathode-off gas at an outlet of the turbine using pressure sensors and performs calculations using the detected pressures such as P4/P6 (Para. [0097]) (i.e. configured for detecting the pressure drop between the turbine input and a turbine output).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Heinrich et al. to incorporate the teaching of a controller configured to detecting the pressure drop between the turbine input and a turbine output as taught by Hayase, as such a functionality allows for turbine efficiency to be calculated (Para. [0081]) and provides capability of determining when freezing avoidance control may be performed (Para. [0052]).
Regarding Claim 6, Heinrich et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Heinrich et al. further teaches and a control device (Fig. 1, #50) (i.e. a control unit) which contains suitable sensors providing input pressure and output pressure of the gas mixture which are ascertained upstream or downstream of the delivery device (Para. [0042]) (i.e. wherein the pressure-detecting unit comprises two pressure sensors).
Heinrich et al. does not teach the control unit (54) is configured to determine an expansion ratio through the turbine (30) from the pressure at the turbine input (31) and an estimated value of the pressure at the turbine output (33).
However, Hayase teaches a cathode gas discharge system from a fuel cell comprising a turbine (Para. [0049]) wherein a pressure P4 of the cathode off-gas at the inlet of the turbine to a pressure P6 of the cathode-off gas at an outlet of the turbine using pressure sensors and determines an expansion ratio P4/P6 wherein P6 is calculated as an approximate value of the atmospheric pressure detected by an atmospheric pressure sensor (Para. [0054]) (i.e. configured to determine an expansion ratio through the turbine from the pressure at the turbine input and estimated value of the pressure at the turbine output).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Heinrich et al. to incorporate the teaching of Hayase, as such a functionality allows for turbine efficiency to be calculated (Para. [0081]) and provides capability of determining when freezing avoidance control may be performed (Para. [0052]).
Regarding Claim 7, Heinrich et al. as modified by Hayase teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6 as explained above.
Heinrich et al. does not teach wherein the control unit (54) is configured to replace the estimated value with an ambient pressure measured by means of an ambient pressure sensor and the known pressure drop characteristic of the exhaust-air system.
However, Hayase teaches a cathode gas discharge system from a fuel cell comprising a turbine (Para. [0049]) wherein a pressure P4 of the cathode off-gas at the inlet of the turbine to a pressure P6 of the cathode-off gas at an outlet of the turbine using pressure sensors and determines an expansion ratio P4/P6 wherein P6 is calculated as an approximate value of the atmospheric pressure detected by an atmospheric pressure sensor and the expansion ratio is determined in consideration of a pressure loss in the fuel cell (Para. [0054]) (i.e. configured to replace the estimated value with an ambient pressure measured by means of an ambient pressure sensor and the known pressure drop characteristic of the exhaust-air system).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Heinrich et al. to incorporate the teaching of Hayase, as such a functionality allows for turbine efficiency to be calculated (Para. [0081]) and provides capability of determining when freezing avoidance control may be performed (Para. [0052]).
Regarding Claim 8, Heinrich et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Heinrich et al. does not teach the control unit (54) is configured to determine the shortfall of a boundary line (64) in the turbine characteristic map in order to validate that the minimum mass flow has been achieved.
However, Hayase teaches cathode gas discharge system from a fuel cell comprising a turbine (Para. [0049]) and a control unit which provides turbine characteristic maps stored in the main storage device of the control unit (Para. [0053], [0055]) and the control unit determines a target value of expansion ratio of the cathode off-gas and determines the degree of opening with reference to a turbine characteristic map indicting a relationship between the target expansion ratio, the flow rate of the cathode off-gas, and the degree of opening (Para. [0053] and Fig. 5 which maps a [mass] flow rate) (i.e. the control unit is capable of determining a shortfall of a boundary line in a turbine characteristic map in order to validate that the minimum mass flow has been achieved).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Heinrich et al. to incorporate the teaching of Hayase, as such a functionality allows for turbine efficiency to be calculated (Para. [0081]) and provides capability of determining when freezing avoidance control may be performed (Para. [0052]).
Regarding Claim 9, Heinrich et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Heinrich et al. does not teach the control unit (54) is configured to carry out a model-based simulation of the turbine for determining the mass flow, which is tracked at least by means of the measured pressure and the measured temperature of the actual turbine (30).
However, Hayase teaches the control unit determines a target value of expansion ratio of the cathode off-gas and determines the degree of opening with reference to a turbine characteristic map indicting a relationship between the target expansion ratio, the flow rate of the cathode off-gas, and the degree of opening (Para. [0053] and Fig. 5 which maps a [mass] flow rate) wherein a pressure P4 of the cathode off-gas at the inlet of the turbine to a pressure P6 of the cathode-off gas at an outlet of the turbine using pressure sensors and determines an expansion ratio P4/P6 (Para. [0054]), (i.e. capable of carrying out a model-based-simulation for determining the mass flow, which is tracked by means of at least measured pressure) and may include temperature sensors that measure the discharge temperature T6 (Para. [0097]) (i.e. and the measured temperature of the actual turbine).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Heinrich et al. to incorporate the teaching of Hayase, as such a functionality allows for turbine efficiency to be calculated (Para. [0081]) and provides capability of determining when freezing avoidance control may be performed (Para. [0052], [0097]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights