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 of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 03 February 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim s 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse (see above) in the reply filed on 03 February 2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1-2, 4-5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamada JP2008112647A (cited in IDS filed 06 June 2023; using machine English translation provided) . Regarding claim 1 , Hamada discloses a fuel cell stack system ( Hamada, Fig. 1, unit 2 0 ) comprising: a fuel cell stack ( Hamada, Fig. 2, stack 22 ) with a first corner, a second corner, a third corner, and a fourth corner ( Hamada, as reasonably suggested by Fig. 2, stack 22 ) , a tilt sensor ( Hamada, Fig. 1, sensor 30 ) located on the fuel cell stack ( Hamada, [0022] ) , wherein the tilt sensor is operable to detect tilt location of the fuel cell stack by determining a longitudinal, transverse and vertical axis of the fuel cell stack ( Hamada, [0022] , sensor 30 detects the tilt angle with respect to the vehicle's longitudinal axis depending on the arrangement direction of the fuel cell stack , assuming that the fuel cell stack is parallel or perpendicular to said axis , thereby determining the tilt angle in 3D space, satisfying the claim limitation ) , and wherein the tilt location is the first, second, third or fourth corner of the fuel cell stack ( Hamada, [0022] ) , the examiner notes the sensor detects the tilt of the fuel cell stack which is not separate from the first to fourth corners, satisfying the limitation, a first purge valve system ( Hamada, Fig. 2, exhaust valve 68 ) and a second purge valve system ( Hamada, Fig. 2, bypass valve 76 ) for removing water from an anode exhaust ( Hamada, [0016], [0034] ) , and a controller ( Hamada, Fig. 1, controller 40 ) including a memory ( Hamada, Fig. 1, memory unit 52 ) and a processor ( Hamada, Fig. 1, CPU 41 ) configured to manage the first and the second purge valve system by determining a purge strategy ( Hamada, [0054] ) based on feedback provided by the tilt sensor ( Hamada, [0050] ) , wherein the first purge valve system and the second purge valve system are located at two different corners of the fuel cell stack ( Hamada, as reasonably suggested by Fig. 2, stack 22, exhaust valve 68, bypass valve 76 ) . center 1301115 0 0 Regarding claim 2 , Hamada further discloses wherein the first purge valve system is located at the first corner and the second purge valve system is located at the third corner ( Hamada, as reasonably suggested by Fig. 2, stack 22, exhaust valve 68, bypass valve 76, first and third corners ) . Regarding claim 4 , Hamada additionally discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine opening of the first or the second purge valve system depending on the tilt location ( Hamada, [0029] ) . Regarding claim 5 , Hamada also discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the opening of the first or second purge valve system depending on tilt angle of the tilt location ( Hamada, [0028-0029] ) . Regarding claim 10 , Hamada further discloses wherein the tilt angle is more than about 5 degrees and less than about 80 degrees ( Hamada, [0050], 30° ) . Regarding claim 11 , Hamada additionally discloses wherein the tilt sensor is operable to detect a tilt angle if the fuel cell stack is tilted at the first, second, third or fourth corner ( Hamada, [0022] , sensor 30 detects the tilt angle with respect to the vehicle's longitudinal axis depending on the arrangement direction of the fuel cell stack , assuming that the fuel cell stack is parallel or perpendicular to said axis , thereby determining the tilt angle in 3D space, see claim 1 above ), the examiner notes that the tilt sensor of Hamada is operable to detect a tilt angle and the fuel cell stack is not disembodied from its corners, thus the limitation is satisfied. Regarding claim 12 , Hamada also discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine opening of the first or the second purge valve system in real-time ( Hamada, [0054] ) , the examiner notes that Hamada does not teach a delay in the determination, which would be understood by the skilled artisan to be in real-time. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada JP2008112647A (cited in IDS filed 06 June 2023; using machine English translation provided) in view of Saito JP2007026843A (using machine English translation provided). Regarding claim 3 , Hamada does not teach wherein the purge strategy comprises determining a first purging frequency or a first purge on/off duty cycle of the first purge valve system and a second purging frequency or a second purge on/off duty cycle of the second purge valve system. Saito teaches wherein the purge strategy comprises determining a first purging frequency of the first purge valve system ( Saito, [0051], Fig. 9, S23, Yes ) and a second purging frequency of the second purge valve system ( Saito, [0052], Fig. 9, S23, No ). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the purge strategy of Saito to Hamada, thereby stabilizing power generation performance ( Saito, [0053] ). Claim(s) 6 -7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada JP2008112647A (cited in IDS filed 06 June 2023; using machine English translation provided) in view of Kumei JP2008311160A (cited in IDS filed 17 January 2024; using machine English translation provided) center 1283970 0 0 Regarding claim 6 , Hamada discloses wherein the first purge valve system is located at the first corner and the second purge valve system is located at the third corner ( Hamada, as reasonably suggested by Fig. 2, stack 22, exhaust valve 68, bypass valve 76, first and third corners ) but does not discloses wherein the controller determines the opening of the first purge valve system and not the second purge valve system when the tilt location is the first corner. Kumei teaches wherein the controller ( Kumei , Fig. 1, ECU 30 ) determines the opening of the first purge valve system ( Kumei , Fig. 1, discharge channel 16 and valve 21 ) and not the second purge valve system ( Kumei , Fig. 1, discharge channel 17 and valve 2 2 ) when the tilt location is the first corner ( Kumei , [0025] ). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the controller determining operation of Hamada with the teaching of Kumei , thereby discharging water quickly ( Kumei , [0027] ). center 1372870 0 0 Regarding claim 7 , Hamada discloses wherein the first purge valve system is located on the first corner and wherein the second corner and first corner are located on a same end plate of the fuel cell stack ( Hamada, as reasonably suggested by Fig. 2, stack 22, exhaust valve 68, first and second corner s ). Hamada does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine the opening of the first purge valve system and not the second purge valve system when the tilt location is the second corner, wherein the first purge valve system is located on the first corner, and wherein the second corner and first corner are located on a same end plate of the fuel cell stack. Kumei teaches wherein the controller ( Kumei , Fig. 1, ECU 30 ) is configured to determine the opening of the first purge valve system ( Kumei , Fig. 1, discharge channel 16 and valve 21 ) and not the second purge valve system ( Kumei , Fig. 1, discharge channel 17 and valve 2 2 ) when the tilt location is the second corner ( Kumei , [0025] ) . Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kumei to the controller of Hamada, thereby discharging water quickly ( Kumei , [0027] ). Claim(s) 8 -9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada JP2008112647A (cited in IDS filed 06 June 2023; using machine English translation provided) in view of Kumei JP2008311160A (cited in IDS filed 17 January 2024; using machine English translation provided) and Maruo JP2021190190A (using machine English translation provided). Regarding claim 8 , Hamada discloses wherein the second purge valve system is located on the third corner ( Hamada, as reasonably suggested by Fig. 2, stack 22, bypass valve 76, third corner ). Hamada does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine the opening of the second purge valve system and not the first purge valve system when the tilt location is the third corner and the tilt angle is in the range of about 5 degrees to about 15 degrees . Kumei teaches wherein the controller ( Kumei , Fig. 1, ECU 30 ) is configured to determine the opening of the second purge valve system ( Kumei , Fig. 1, discharge channel 17 and valve 22 ) and not the first purge valve system ( Kumei , Fig. 1, discharge channel 16 and valve 21 ) when the tilt location is the third corner ( Kumei , [0025] ). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kumei to the controller of Hamada, thereby discharging water quickly ( Kumei , [0027] ). Hamada as modified by Kumei does not teach wherein the tilt angle is in the range of about 5 degrees to about 15 degrees . Maruo teaches wherein the tilt angle is in the range of about 5 degrees to about 15 degrees ( Maruo , [0034], 5° or more…15° ). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to further add the teaching of Maruo to the controller of Hamada as modified by Kumei thereby allow ing the fuel off-gas to be discharged ( Maruo , [0029] ). Regarding claim 9 , Hamada discloses herein the second purge valve system is located on the third corner and the third corner and fourth corner are located on a same end plate of the fuel cell stack ( Hamada, as reasonably suggested by Fig. 2, stack 22, bypass valve 76, third and center 358140 0 0 fourth corners ). Hamada does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine the opening of the second purge valve system and not the first purge valve system when the tilt location is the fourth corner and the tilt angle is in the range of about 5 degrees to about 15 degrees. Kumei teaches wherein the controller ( Kumei , Fig. 1, ECU 30 ) is configured to determine the opening of the second purge valve system ( Kumei , Fig. 1, discharge channel 17 and valve 22 ) and not the first purge valve system ( Kumei , Fig. 1, discharge channel 16 and valve 21 ) when the tilt location is the fourth corner ( Kumei , [0025] ). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kumei to the controller of Hamada, thereby discharging water quickly ( Kumei , [0027] ). Hamada as modified by Kumei does not teach wherein the tilt angle is in the range of about 5 degrees to about 15 degrees . Maruo teaches wherein the tilt angle is in the range of about 5 degrees to about 15 degrees ( Maruo , [0034], 5° or more…15° ). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to further add the teaching of Maruo to the controller of Hamada as modified by Kumei thereby allow ing the fuel off-gas to be discharged ( Maruo , [0029] ). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshida WO2006033426A1 (discloses modifying the frequency of the duty cycle to prevent flooding). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4590 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F . 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 Tiffany Legette can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7078 . 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. /JARED HANSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723