DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 06/29/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2022-104261 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 device" ("circuitry" on page 2 of the present specification) which is coupled with "configured to manage a state of the one or more cells for each of the multiple sections" in claims 1-8, and
“flow regulating mechanism” (“flow regulating valve” on page 9) which is coupled with “configured to regulate a flow rate of a fluid circulating through each of the multiple sections” in claims 1-8.
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 Objections
Claim 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5-8 recite “upon regulating a flow rate of a fluid” in the 3rd line of the claims, which should be amended to read “upon regulating [[a]] the flow rate of [[a]] the fluid” in order to improve claim limitation consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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, 4, 5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foreign Publication JP2015176737A (used attached machine translation), hereafter Kawai.
Regarding claim 1, Kawai discloses a fuel cell system ([0018] power generation unit U1) comprising:
a fuel cell stack (CS) divided into multiple sections, each of the multiple sections being constituted by one or more cells ([0024] cell stack CS has multiple cell blocks CB, each composed of multiple cells);
a control device (36) configured to manage a state of the one or more cells for each of the multiple sections ([0034] operation control means 36); and
a flow regulating mechanism ([0025] group of flow controllers 38 and 39) configured to regulate a flow rate of a fluid circulating through each of the multiple sections, based on the state managed by the control device ([0032] number of cell blocks operating changing will change amount of fuel gas and oxidizer gas required to change, so flow rate controller groups 38, 39 are controlled by the operation control means 36),
wherein the control device (36) is configured to divide the fuel cell stack (CS) such that a number of cells in a first section of the multiple sections and a number of cells in a second section of the multiple sections other than the first section differ from each other ([0034] operation control means 36 includes operation number determination unit 36a that determines the number of cell blocks CB to be operated for power generation according to the magnitude of the load power).
Regarding claim 4, Kawai discloses a measurement sensor (29) configured to make a measurement of one or both of a surrounding environment of the fuel cell stack and an internal state of the fuel cell stack ([0032] voltmeter 29 to measure cell block voltage), wherein the control device is configured to, based on a result of the measurement made by the measurement sensor, regroup the multiple sections such that the number of cells in the first section and the number of cells in the second section differ from each other ([0050] operating cell block determination unit 36b determines operating priority level based on detection result of the voltage detection means 29A).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Kawai discloses wherein the flow regulating mechanism (38, 39) is configured to, upon regulating a flow rate of a fluid in the first section, regulate a flow rate in the second section in accordance with the flow regulation in the first section ([0033] cell stack CS is configured to be able to supply and stop fuel and oxidizer gases for each of the multiple cell blocks CB).
Regarding claim 9, Kawai discloses a fuel cell system ([0018] power generation unit U1) comprising:
a fuel cell stack (CS) divided into multiple sections, each of the multiple sections being constituted by one or more cells ([0024] cell stack CS has multiple cell blocks CB, each composed of multiple cells);
circuitry (36) configured to manage a state of the one or more cells for each of the multiple sections ([0034] operation control means 36); and
a flow regulating mechanism ([0025] group of flow controllers 38 and 39) including a flow regulating valve ([0025] flow control units 38a and devices 39a) and configured to regulate a flow rate of a fluid circulating through each of the multiple sections, based on the state managed by the control device ([0032] number of cell blocks operating changing will change amount of fuel gas and oxidizer gas required to change, so flow rate controller groups 38, 39 are controlled by the operation control means 36),
wherein the circuitry (36) is configured to divide the fuel cell stack (CS) such that a number of cells in a first section of the multiple sections and a number of cells in a second section of the multiple sections other than the first section differ from each other ([0034] operation control means 36 includes operation number determination unit 36a that determines the number of cell blocks CB to be operated for power generation according to the magnitude of the load power).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication JP2015176737A (used attached machine translation), hereafter Kawai, as stated above for claim 1, and further in view of Published Application US20050287406A1, hereafter Takahashi.
Regarding claim 2, Kawai is silent on wherein the control device is configured to divide the fuel cell stack such that a number of cells constituting a middle section of the fuel cell stack and the number of cells constituting an end section of the fuel cell stack differ from each other, the middle section being located in a middle of the fuel cell stack, the end section being located closer to an end of the fuel cell stack than the middle section is.
In the analogous art of fuel cell stack management, Takahashi that water produced when electricity is generated at the end of the fuel cell stack has been known to condense or freeze inside the stack, hindering the continued generation of electricity from fuel cells adjacent the end of the stack ([0007]). Takahashi further discloses sub-stacks at the end of the fuel cell stack, where the water produced is more likely to condense or freeze, can be controlled so that sub-stacks at the end of the stack do not generate electricity at low ambient temperatures, such as 0°C or lower ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Kawai to also take into account the ends of the stacks and their vulnerabilities to lower temperatures, as disclosed by Takahashi, and configure the control device to group the ends of the stack in a separate smaller cell block from the middle section, in order to effectively control their use during freezing temperatures, as suggested by Takahashi.
Regarding claim 3, Kawai is silent on wherein the fuel cell stack is divided such that a number of cells constituting an end section of the fuel cell stack is smaller than a number of cells constituting a middle section of the fuel cell stack, the middle section being located in a middle of the fuel cell stack, the end section being located closer to an end of the fuel cell stack than the middle section is.
In the analogous art of fuel cell stack management, Takahashi that water produced when electricity is generated at the end of the fuel cell stack has been known to condense or freeze inside the stack, hindering the continued generation of electricity from fuel cells adjacent the end of the stack ([0007]). Takahashi further discloses sub-stacks at the end of the fuel cell stack, where the water produced is more likely to condense or freeze, can be controlled so that sub-stacks at the end of the stack do not generate electricity at low ambient temperatures, such as 0°C or lower ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Kawai to also take into account the ends of the stacks and their vulnerabilities to lower temperatures, as disclosed by Takahashi, and configure the control device to group the ends of the stack in a separate smaller cell block from the middle section, in order to effectively control their use during freezing temperatures, as suggested by Takahashi.
Regarding claims 6-7, Kawai further discloses wherein the flow regulating mechanism (38, 39) is configured to, upon regulating a flow rate of a fluid in the first section, regulate a flow rate in the second section in accordance with the flow regulation in the first section ([0033] cell stack CS is configured to be able to supply and stop fuel and oxidizer gases for each of the multiple cell blocks CB).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754