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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “cathode” has accidently been removed from line 10. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-10 are also objected to as depending upon claim 1. 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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 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. The term “ a minimum flow rate of compressed air ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ minimum flow rate ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-10 are also rejected as depending upon claim 1. Claims 1-10 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. Claim 1 includes the limitation anti-pumping protection means on line 12, and then on lines 22-23 states “ each minimum passage section forming an anti-pumping protection means”. It is unclear whether “ each minimum passage section forming an anti-pumping protection means” on lines 22-23 is based on the antecedent basis of “anti-pumping protection means” defined on line 12 or if it is an additional anti-pumping protection means. Further, claim 2 defines “the anti-pumping protection means comprises a duct… and a bypass valve”, but claim 1 as just set forth already sets forth that each minimum passage section forms an anti-pumping protection means. It is suggested that the language on line 12 of claim 1 be amended to clarify if the number of anti-pumping protection means is one or more or a plurality, and that the minimum passage section anti-pumping protection means and the duct and bypass valve anti-pumping protection means are properly related back to their antecedent basis. Claims 2-10 are also rejected as depending upon claim 1. 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. 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. 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 1 -2 , 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas (DE 102016200208; machine translation relied upon) in view of Clingerman (US Pub. No. 2005/0186457) . Regarding claim s 1 -2 and 10 , Jonas teaches a fuel cell system 100 (as claimed in claim 10) comprising a cathode supply 30 (taken to be the claimed device of claim 1 for supplying compressed air to one or more cathodes 12 of a fuel cell system – embodiments are disclosed with one, three and five cathodes) , comprising a compressor 33 configured to provide compressed air to all the cathodes, cathode supply paths 31 (taken to be the claimed ducts) conducting the compressed air towards each cathode, adjusting means 38 and 39 (taken to be the claimed proportioning valves – broadest reasonable interpretation of proportioning is adjusting or regulating something so that it has a particular or suitable relationship to something else) upstream and downstream of each cathode configured to regulate the flow rate of compressed air passing through each cathode, a wastegate pipe 36 and adjusting means 37 (taken to be the claimed anti-pumping protection means of claims 1-2, with adjusting means 37 taken to be the claimed bypass valve of claim 2 ) configured to permit the flow of a minimum flow rate of compressed air leaving the compressor (machine translation at pages 5-6; figures 1-3), and a control device is preferably provided which can make power adjustments (taken to read on the limitations of configured to control the speed of the compressor and the opening or closing of each proportioning valve and/or the operation of the anti-pumping protection means) (machine translation at page 3, second to last paragraph). Jonas does not specifically disclose that at least one proportioning valve comprises a minimum passage section configured to permit the passage of a minimum flow rate of compressed air when said proportioning valve is in the closed position. Clingerman teaches providing a cathode valve 34 downstream of a cathode which includes specifically sized flow-through orifices that provides flow in the closed position (taken to meet the limitation of the claimed minimum passage section configured to permit the passage of a minimum flow rate when said proportioning valve is in the closed position, each minimum passage section forming an anti-pumping protection means) (paragraph [0038]; figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a proportioning valve downstream of the cathode having a minimum passage section as taught by Clingerman in the supply device of Jonas in order to provide the proper amount of back pressure at the cathode output (see Clingerman at paragraph [0022]) and/or to allow the system to vent even if the valve 34 fails in the closed position (see Clingerman at paragraph [0041]). Regarding claim 6, Jonas teaches that the purpose of the controller is to control the power of the fuel cell system (machine translation at page 3, second to last paragraph), therefore these limitations are taken to be met. Regarding claim 9, Jonas teaches a turbine 34 arranged downstream of the cathodes and configured to regulate the pressure of the compressed air downstream of the cathodes (machine translation at page 5, fourth paragraph; figure 1). Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas in view of Clingerman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aramaki (JP2000-315509; machine translation relied upon) . Regarding claims 3-5, Jonas teaches that the system preferably has sensors for monitoring variables of the system whose data can be transmitted to the control device in order to control the system (machine translation at page 3, last paragraph), but does not specifically disclose measuring the pressure, temperature, or flow rate of the air leaving the compressor, however it is well-known and conventional to do so as is shown, e.g., by Aramaki (see machine translation at page 2, second to last paragraph), and it would have been obvious to make such measurements and to control the speed of the compressor and the opening or closing of each proportioning valve and the anti-pumping protection means as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas in view of Clingerman as applied to clai m 1 above, and further in view of Manery (US Pub. No. 2003/0022031) . Regarding claim 7, Jonas does not specifically disclose that the control device is supplied with power by at least one fuel cell of the fuel cell system. Manery teaches using a fuel cell system to power the controller for the system (paragraph [0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a fuel cell to power the controller of the fuel cell system as taught by Manery in the device of Jonas in order to prevent drain on battery during normal operation of the system (see Manery at paragraph [0074]). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas in view of Clingerman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kemmer (US Pub. No. 2016/0204455) . Regarding claim 8, Jonas does not specifically disclose at least one heat exchanger downstream of the compressor and upstream of the cathodes. Kemmer teaches a fuel cell system where a heat exchanger 19 is arranged downstream of the compressor 10 and upstream of the cathode chamber 4 (paragraph [0040]). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place a heat exchanger downstream of the compressor and upstream of the cathodes as taught by Kemmer in the device of Jonas as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1612 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 . 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 Katelyn Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5545 . 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. /P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 4 , 2026 /KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749