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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/19/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Roberts et al. (US 2001/0028967).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts et al. discloses in Figs 1-4, a system ([0002]) comprising: a fuel cell stack (ref 10); and a controller ([0016], [0035]) configured to operate the stack (ref 10) with a given air stoic ratio ([0012]-[0013], [0026]) while a temperature of the stack (ref 10) is greater than a temperature threshold ([0012]-[0013], [0026]) and to operate the stack (ref 10) with a lower air stoic ratio ([0012], [0026]), to thereby suppress a stack voltage ([0012]) of the stack in order to increase heat generation ([0012]-[0013], [0026]) of the stack (ref 10), while the temperature ([0012]-[0013], [0026]) of the stack (ref 10) is lower than the temperature threshold ([0012]-[0013], [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Roberts et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the controller ([0016], [0035]) is further configured to adjust the lower air stoic ratio ([0012], [0026]) according to a difference between ([0045]-[0047]) the stack voltage of the stack (ref 10) and a desired stack voltage ([0045]-[0047], voltage is monitored and controlled accordingly, via stoichiometry / starvation) of the stack (ref 10).
Regarding claim 3, Roberts et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the controller ([0016], [0035]) is further configured to adjust a stack current ([0001], [0026], current adjusting disclosed) of the stack (ref 10) in order to operate ([0001], [0012], [0026]) the stack (ref 10) with the lower air stoic ratio ([0012], [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Roberts et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the controller ([0016], [0035]) is further configured to adjust a stack current ([0001], [0012], [0026]) of the stack (ref 10) in order to operate the stack (ref 10) with an air stoic ratio greater than ([0001], [0012], [0026], current and voltage relationship disclosed) the lower air stoic ratio ([0012], [0026]) while the stack voltage is lower than a voltage threshold ([0045]-[0047], voltage is monitored and controlled accordingly, via stoichiometry / starvation).
Regarding claim 6, Roberts et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the controller ([0016], [0035]) is further configured to adjust a mass air flow ([0012], [0026], [0031], [0032]) into the stack (ref 10) in order to operate the stack (ref 10) with the lower air stoic ratio ([0012], [0026], [0031], [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Roberts et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the controller ([0016], [0035]) is further configured to operate the stack (ref 10) with the lower air stoic ratio ([0012]-[0013], [0037]-[0039]) while the temperature of the stack (ref 10) is lower than the temperature threshold ([0012]-[0013], [0037]-[0039]) and while the stack voltage ([0034]-[0035]) of the stack (ref 10) is lower than a freeze voltage threshold ([0037]-[0039]).
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 2001/0028967) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Robert et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Roberts et al. does not explicitly disclose changing the air stoic ratio to the levels of the instant claims (1.75 and 1.5, and 1.5 and 1.0), the change in the air stoic ratio is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Roberts (see Abstract, [0002], [0012]-[0015], [0026]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of filing the invention that varying reactant stoichiometry will vary the performance efficiency of the fuel cell stack system. Therefore the performance efficiency is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the air stoic ratio stoichiometry of said fuel cell stack system. For that reason, the air stoic ratio stoichiometry, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the air stoic ratio stoichiometry cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the air stoic ratio stoichiometry in the system of Roberts et al. to obtain the desired performance efficiency of the fuel cell stack system (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 2001/0028967) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2016/0006059).
Regarding claim 5, Roberts et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the voltage threshold is a low-side voltage limit of a DC/DC converter configured to receive the stack voltage from the stack.
Kwon et al. discloses in Figs 1-14, a fuel cell stack (ref 10) including a DC/DC converter (ref 21). The DC/DC converter (ref 21) adjusts / monitors voltage limits ([0056]-[0057]) within the fuel cell stack (ref 10). This configuration enhances overall fuel cell stack operation efficiency ([0056]-[0057]).
Kwon et al. and Roberts et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cell stacks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the DC/DC converter disclosed by Kwon et al. into the system of Roberts et al. to monitor voltage limits, thereby enhancing overall fuel cell stack operation and efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sederquist et al. (US 2008/0199743) ([0033]) discloses in Figs 1-2, a system ([0015]) comprising: a fuel cell stack ([0016], ref 14); and a controller configured to operate the stack (ref 14) with a given air stoic ratio ([0033]) while a temperature of the stack (ref 14) is greater than a temperature threshold ([0033]) and to operate the stack (ref 14) with a lower air stoic ratio ([0033]), to thereby suppress a stack voltage ([0033]) of the stack (ref 14) in order to increase heat generation ([0033]) of the stack (ref 14), while the temperature of the stack (ref 14) is lower than the temperature threshold ([0033]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights