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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 9, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2 and 4 are currently amended and remain pending in the application. Claim 3 is canceled.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. New rejections follow.
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:
a fuel gas supply device configured to supply the fuel gas to the fuel cell (paragraph 0023, injector 23),
an oxidant gas supply device configured to supply the oxidant gas to the fuel cell (paragraph 0037, air compressor 32);
a refrigerant supply device configured to supply refrigerant to the fuel cell (paragraph 0053, fan 42);
a control unit (paragraph 0055, computer system),
in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 § 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 2005/0053809 A1, hereinafter “Hayashi”) in view of Wells et al. (US 2003/0022045 A1, hereinafter “Wells”) and Tanaka et al. (US 2012/0003557 A1, cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 28, 2023, and hereinafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a fuel cell system ([0037] and Fig. 3, fuel cell system 10) comprising:
a fuel cell configured to generate electric power when supplied with fuel gas and oxidant gas ([0038]-[0039], fuel cells 14, hydrogen-containing gas, and oxygen-containing gas);
a fuel gas supply device configured to supply the fuel gas to the fuel cell ([0041]-[0042] and Fig. 3, fuel gas supply system 28 including an ejector 40);
an oxidant gas supply device configured to supply the oxidant gas to the fuel cell ([0044]-[0045] and Fig. 3, oxygen-containing gas supply system including compressor 52);
a fuel cell temperature measurement device configured to measure a temperature of the fuel cell ([0047]-[0048] and Fig. 3, thermometer 56); and
a control unit ([0047], CPU 60),
wherein the control unit is configured to, when the temperature of the fuel cell is lower than a target temperature, perform a warm-up operation to increase the temperature of the fuel cell to the target temperature ([0047], freezing temperature starting up operation control map when the environmental temperature is 0°C or less) by generating the electric power with the fuel cell while cooling the fuel cell with the oxidant gas by controlling an amount of the oxidant gas supplied ([0056], oxygen-containing gas supplied to the fuel cell stack 12 is regulated at a higher pressure and flow rate in the freezing environment compared to the normal starting up operating condition), and
the control unit is configured to control the oxidant gas supply device such that the amount of the oxidant gas supplied during the warm-up operation is greater than the amount of the oxidant gas supplied during normal operation ([0056], oxygen-containing gas supplied to the fuel cell stack 12 is regulated at a higher pressure and flow rate in the freezing environment compared to the normal starting up operating condition).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Hayashi further discloses a refrigerant supply device configured to supply refrigerant to the fuel cell ([0041], coolant supply system); but does not disclose that the refrigerant supply device is a fan, and wherein the control unit is configured to, when the temperature of the fuel cell is lower than a target temperature, perform a warm-up operation to increase the temperature of the fuel cell to the target temperature by generating the electric power with the fuel cell while cooling the fuel cell with the oxidant gas by stopping supply of the refrigerant.
Wells discloses a cooling fan 54 that provides coolant air to fuel cell stack 12 ([0054] and Fig. 6).
Hayashi and Wells are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fuel cell systems. 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 fuel cell system of Hayashi with the teachings of Wells according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an air-cooled fuel cell system, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Hayashi does not disclose wherein the control unit is configured to, when the temperature of the fuel cell is lower than a target temperature, perform a warm-up operation to increase the temperature of the fuel cell to the target temperature by generating the electric power with the fuel cell while cooling the fuel cell with the oxidant gas by stopping supply of the refrigerant.
Tanaka discloses a rapid warm-up operation without circulating cooling water at a startup temperature below freezing ([0010]).
Tanaka is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of fuel cell systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fuel cell system of modified Hayashi with the teachings of Tanaka, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would minimize the fuel cell system start-up time in extremely cold weather, reducing user anxiety (Tanaka [0064]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Hayashi further discloses wherein the refrigerant is a coolant gas (Wells [0051], coolant air).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hayashi further discloses wherein the control unit is configured to control the fuel gas supply device such that an amount of the fuel gas supplied during the warm-up operation is greater than the amount of the fuel gas supplied during normal operation ([0055], hydrogen gas supplied to the fuel cell stack 12 is regulated at a higher pressure and flow rate in the freezing environment compared to the normal starting up operating condition). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoshi (US 2016/0240872 A1) discloses controlling cathode gas pressure during a warm-up operation to optimize stack temperature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 22 May 2026
Prosecution Insights