DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Rejections
3. Rejection of claims in view of Le Canut et al. is being modified to address new limitations.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Le Canut et al. (CA 2488564).
Claim 1. Le Canut et al. teach a system for sharing an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) stimulus (apparatus 10 for representing electrochemical impedance spectroscopy;[0040] , the system comprising:
an EIS stimulus circuit that generates a set of stimulus signals comprising a voltage or a current (frequency response analyzer 66 to produce control signals comprising current; [0042][0048]);
a switching circuit coupled to the EIS stimulus circuit (multiplexer switching device 130 connected to impedance measuring device/frequency response analyzer 66 and is configured to select different components within the stack to measure impedance of a section stack; see Fig 12 and [0069];
a measurement circuit coupled to the stacks, the measurement circuit being configured to connect the stimulus signals to a selected one or more electrochemical cells within at least one of the first stack or the second stack and to simultaneously measures a stimulus signal and a response signal generated by one or more electrochemical cells to obtain impedance data (frequency response analyzer coupled to fuel cell/fuel cell stacks to measure voltage across fuel cells and current from the fuel cell stacks to produce impedance spectrum; [0029][0019] and since the switching circuit is enabled to select different components/fuel cells within the same stack [0069], therefore, frequency response analyzer is configured to measure simultaneously stimulus signal and response signal from each of the selected fuel cells and generate impedance spectrum; and
a processor coupled to the measurement circuit, the processor uses the response signal to determine a condition of the one or more electrochemical cells in a stack (processor 12 connected to frequency response analyzer and uses impedance signal to determine fault of the fuel cell in a stack; [0029]).
Le Canut et al. teach the multiplexer switching circuit 130 is switchable to select components within the stack [0069] but do not explicitly teach the switching circuit being configured to sequentially apply the set of stimulus signals to a first stacks of a set of stacks of electrochemical cells and to a second stack of the set of stacks. However, Le Canut teach the term “fuel cell” encompasses fuel cell stacks, components of fuel cell stacks and electrochemical cell stacks [0081] and thus a multiplexer switching device 130 connected to fuel/electrochemical cell stacks [0069][0081] i.e. first and second stacks of electrochemical cells, the multiplexer switching device which inherently has capability of selecting different inputs would also be capable of selecting to apply sequentially signals to first and second electrochemical cell stacks when connected to electrochemical cell stacks.
Claim 3. Le Canut et al. teach the processor analyzing the impedance data to predict conditions for the one or more electrochemical cells (processor analyze the impedance signal to determine fault condition; [0029]).
Claim 4. Le Canut teach the measurement circuit measures the impedance data within a frequency range of 5 kHz (detectable change in impedances in frequency range of about 0.5 to 100 kHz; [0045]).
Claim 7. Le Canut teach an error handling circuit that uses the response signal to detect a fault or a status associated with at least some of the one or more electrochemical cells (processor process the impedance signal to detect a fault; [0029], thus it is apparent the processor is comprised of error circuit as claimed).
Claim 9. Limitation reciting “measurement circuit performs steps comprising compensating a phase delay between the stimulus signal and the response signal to improve an accuracy of the impedance data” are to claimed properties and functions. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Canut as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bey, Jr. et al. (US 5,264,798).
Claim 5. Le Canut does not teach system comprised of an impedance matching circuit that matches of a cell of the set of stacks of electrochemical cells to an impedance of measurement circuit.
However, Bey, Jr. et al. teach circuit for measuring electrochemical impedance changes (abstract) wherein it is possible to adjust the input impedance of receiver to match the output impedance of the source, using the matched impedances results in maximized power transfer from source to receiver (abstract and col. 7, ll. 50-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Bey, Jr. et al. to modify the circuit of Le Canut to include impedance matching circuitry because it would enable faster transfer of impedance from cell of electrochemical cell to measurement circuit.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Canut as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Demirhan et al. (WO2022/119546).
Claim 6. Le Canut does not teach a calibration circuit that calibrates one or more parameters of at least one of the EIS stimulus circuit or the measurement circuit. However, Demirhan et al. teach electrochemical analyzer comprising electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and potentiostat circuits and EIS further comprises calibration circuit to eliminate the effects of voltage difference and phase difference and therefore high-performance results were obtained with low-cost components (page 4, elements 1 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Demirhan et al. teaching to add calibration circuit to the EIS stimulus circuit of Le Canut et al. because it would eliminate the effects of voltage difference and phase difference and therefore would provide high-performance measuring results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Canut as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sestok, IV et al. (US 2022/0268838).
Claim 8. Le Canut et al. do not teach at least one of a PLL circuit or a clock circuit to synchronize the stimulus signal and the response signal. However, Sestok, IV et al. teach management circuit includes measurement circuit to apply control signal and sense circuitry to sense signals ([0024] and Fig 1). Sestok, IV further teaches a reference clock is part of the circuit to integrate with excitation and sense signals [0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Sestok, IV et al. teaching to include a clock circuit to the EIS stimulus circuit of Le Canut et al. because it would ensure all the components perform their functions at the correct time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art, Le Canut et al. teach frequency response analyzer 66 produce control signals to apply to stack of electrochemical cells [0042][0048][0069] but do not teach EIS stimulus circuit is placed at a distance from the stack to have reduce safety requirement as recited in claims 2 and 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6 of remarks that cited prior art, Le Canut multiplexer switching device is switchable to select components within a stack and fails to disclose
switching device switchable between multiple stacks as recited in claim 1.
In response, Le Canut teach the term “fuel cell” encompasses fuel cell stacks, components of fuel cell stacks and electrochemical cell stacks [0081] and thus a multiplexer switching device 130 connected to fuel/electrochemical cell stacks [0069][0081] i.e. first and second stacks of electrochemical cells, the multiplexer switching device which inherently has capability of selecting different inputs would also be capable of applying sequentially signals to first and second electrochemical cell stacks when connected to electrochemical cell stacks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7895. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/GURPREET KAUR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights