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 .
The Applicant’s amendments were received on 5/18/26.
Specification
The amended specification submitted on 5/18/26 has been accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 1-11 are maintained. The rejection will be repeated below for convenience.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 1-11 (item 7 of the Non-Final Office action dated 2/18/26) are withdrawn. As best understood, hydrogen/H2O electrode will be interpreted as hydrogen electrode when the cell functions as a fuel cell and H2O electrode when functioning as an electrolysis.
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 1-11 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. Specifically, it is unknown if solid oxide “type” is pertaining to the intrinsic, extrinsic property of electrochemical cells. Appropriate corrections and/or further clarification are required.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims 1 and 5 are also rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Analysis
As best understood, hydrogen/water (H2/H2O) electrodes will be interpreted as hydrogen electrode when the cell functions as a fuel cell or H2O electrode when functioning as an electrolysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al, on claims 1, 3, 4, 11 are maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
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.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al (US Publication 20130149627).
Regarding claim 1, the Nishimura et al. reference discloses an operating method of a fuel cell stack with fuel cell units in which an anode gas is pulsated (regular interval for a given period of time) at startup (Applicant’s claim “for a given period of time in which there is no electrical current exiting”) to optimized or renew anode gas (Abstract) in the fuel cell stack on the anode side (hydrogen electrode).
Regarding claims 3, the Nishimura et al. reference disclose that pulsating the supply of the safety gas is performed at startup wherein the voltage threshold is 0V.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the Nishimura et al. reference discloses at startup, the onset of startup of the fuel cell, the initial pulsation of the hydrogen gas is 0 (at S1) or less than 10Nml/min/cm2 and less than 5 Nml/min/cm2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nishimura et al., on claims 2 and 10 are maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nishimura et al in view of Perry, on claim(s) 6 is maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nishimura et al in view of Nakato et al., on claims 7 and 8 are maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nishimura et al. in view of McElroy et al. et al., on claim 9 is maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nishimura et al (US Publication 20130149627).
Regarding claim 2, the Nishimura et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Nishimura reference discloses the pulsing gas is a hydrogen gas but is silent in disclosing the hydrogen is pure, however, it would have been obvious to provide pure hydrogen because the method comprises maintaining high hydrogen concentration inside the fuel cell stack. Impurities of fuel gas would contaminate the fuel cell. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, §103 likely bars its patentability. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 10 recites multiple compounds in an alternative manner. Thus, as long as one of the components are disclosed by the prior art such as pure hydrogen. It is unnecessary to address the rest of the claimed limitations such as hydrogen diluted in nitrogen.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nishimura et al (US Publication 20130149627) in view of Perry (US Patent 6,391,485).
Regarding claim 6, the Nishimura reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Nishimura reference discloses at startup and during the fuel cell is shut down, the cathode comprises nitrogen gas but does not explicitly discloses with a temporal shift from pulsing of safety gas, purging compartments on a side of oxygen electrodes using at least one gas selected from the group consisting of neutral gas such as nitrogen, however, the Perry reference disclose during shut down (temporal shift) of the fuel cell, it is known to protect the fuel cell by flooding the cathode with purge gas such as nitrogen to prevent chemical process to occur that may lead to safety concerns and degradation in performance life of the cell at shut down. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate during shut down (temporal shift) of the fuel cell, to protect the fuel cell by flooding the cathode with purge gas such as nitrogen disclosed by the Perry reference for the fuel cell method at startup and/or shut down disclosed by the Nishimura reference for fuel cell efficiency.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nishimura et al (US Publication 20130149627) in view of Nakato et al. (JP09-45353).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the Nishimura et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Nishimura reference discloses at startup of the fuel cell, the fuel cell generally needs warming to operational temperature but does not explicitly recite further comprising at the same time as the pulsing of the anode gas, heating the stack to maintain a stack temperature. However, the Nakato et al. reference discloses at start up, where the fuel and air input starts, the temperature of the stack is low, the reaction efficiency of air and hydrogen gas is low that would affect power generation efficiency. By providing a heat base plate in contact with the fuel cell, heating the stack at startup to operational temperature can be uniform, the power generation can increase. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the method of heating the fuel cell with a heat base plate during startup while fuel and air is provided to the anode and cathode, respectively to uniformly heat the fuel cell to operational temperature disclosed by the Nakato et al. reference for the fuel cell startup method at the time the fuel gas is provided to the anode (at startup S8) disclosed by the Nishimura et al. to uniformly heat the fuel cell for efficient power output.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nishimura et al (US Publication 20130149627) in view of McElroy et al. et al. (US Patent 4657829).
Regarding claim 9, the Nishimura et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Nishimura reference is silent in disclosing that the method of claim 1 is implemented in a power-to-gas unit comprising a plurality of electrolysis reactors having a stack of elementary electrochemical cells. However, the McElroy et al. reference discloses implemented in a power-to-gas unit comprising a plurality of electrolysis reactors having a stack of elementary electrochemical cells allowing the fuel cell stack for operate at peak power capacity several times greater than that of normal operations (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the method implemented in power-to-gas unit comprising a plurality of electrolysis reactors having a stack of elementary electrochemical cells disclosed by the McElroy et al. reference into the fuel cell stack disclosed by the Nishimura et al. reference in order to maximize the fuel cell operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue, “
PNG
media_image1.png
162
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
However, the specification discloses that “the hot standby mode…SOFC fuel cell or an SOEC electrolysis reactor is kept at a normal operating temperature, typically from 700°C-800 °C” wherein “typically” appears to be much broader than 700°C-800 °C and does not limit the scope of the claims to only 700°C-800 °C in hot standby mode.
The Applicant argues that the other prior art such as Perry, Nakato, McElroy do not disclose these features, however, based on the Applicant’s specifications, the hot standby mode is much broader in temperature than argued.
The Applicant argues, “
PNG
media_image2.png
108
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”
However, “type” is indefinite since it does not necessarily have to describe the architecture as argued, it is unknown if “type” is intended to convey. Please see MPEP2173.05(b) IIIE.
As best understood, hydrogen/water (H2/H2O) electrodes will be interpreted as hydrogen electrode when the cell functions as a fuel cell and H2O electrode when functioning as an electrolysis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights