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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/4/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7 and 16 in the reply filed on 8/4/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1 and 8 recite similar features. This is not found persuasive because the method of invention II can be used by an apparatus without connection terminals connected between the cells of the fuel cell.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuglevand (US Pub No. 2002/0018922) in view of Ranieri (US Pub No. 2022/0109307)
Regarding Claim 1, Fuglevand et al. teaches an apparatus for controlling a fuel cell [Fig. 4, 0079], comprising:
a monitoring processor [30, Fig. 4, 0079, 0090] connected to a fuel cell [90, Fig. 4, 0079] and configured to measure a voltage drop of the fuel cell and inter-cell voltages of the fuel cell [91 is analysis circuity that monitors voltage and voltage and current, 0080-0082]; and
a processor configured to determine a failure of the fuel cell based on a
measured cell value of the monitoring processor [Fig. 5, 0090, each controller 100-120 comprise programable microcontroller, MC68HC705P6A available from Motorola, Inc., which is a processor, 0132, 0087],
wherein the monitoring processor comprises:
connection terminals connected between the cells of the fuel cell, respectively;
switches respectively connected to the connection terminals and
configured to switch on or switch off [0132, 0087]; and current sources each configured to include:
one end connected to each of the switches; and a current having a predetermined size flow therein [0087-0089].
Fuglevand et al. is silent on wherein the processor is further configured to:
control the switch so that a pull-down current flows into the current source; and determine a failure of the fuel cell based on a difference between the inter-cell voltages of the fuel cell.
Ranieri et al. the use of a pull down resistor [R13, Fig. 7, 0152] to allow the electrical drive potential to be adjusted and each transistor to be turned on or off, without deteriorating it [0154-0157].
Since Fuglevand et al. teaches a control system for fuel cells, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the pull-down resistor of Ranieri et al. to the circuitry of Fuglevand et al. in order to allows the electrical drive potential to be adjusted and each transistor to be turned on or off, without deteriorating it [0154-0157].
In addition, the combination would have been merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, and 16 are 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.
Fuglevand (US Pub No. 2002/0018922) and Ranieri (US Pub No. 2022/0109307) are the closest prior art.
Fuglevand et al. teaches an apparatus for controlling a fuel cell [Fig. 4, 0079], comprising:
a monitoring processor [30, Fig. 4, 0079] connected to a fuel cell [90, Fig. 4, 0079] and configured to measure a voltage drop of the fuel cell and inter-cell voltages of the fuel cell [91 is analysis circuity that monitors voltage and voltage and current, 0080-0082]; and
a processor configured to determine a failure of the fuel cell based on a
measured cell value of the monitoring processor [Fig. 5, 0090, each controller 100-120 comprise programable microcontroller, MC68HC705P6A available from Motorola, Inc., which is a processor, 0132, 0087],
wherein the monitoring processor comprises:
connection terminals connected between the cells of the fuel cell, respectively;
switches respectively connected to the connection terminals and
configured to switch on or switch off [0132, 0087]; and current sources each configured to include:
one end connected to each of the switches; and a current having a predetermined size flow therein [0087-0089].
Ranieri et al. the use of a pull down resistor [R13, Fig. 7, 0152] to allow the electrical drive potential to be adjusted and each transistor to be turned on or off, without deteriorating it [0154-0157].
Modified Fuglevand et al. teaches limitations of the claim but does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the monitoring processor is further configured to form a discharge path as the pull-down current having the predetermined size flows into the current source when the switch becomes on.” in claim 2, “wherein the current source comprises a static current source connected to each of the connection terminals and configured to include a current having a predetermined size flow therein regardless of a cell voltage of the fuel cell. ” in claim 3, “wherein the processor is further configured to: calculate a difference between the inter-cell voltages of the fuel cell after controlling the switch to become on; determine the fuel cell to be normal when the difference is equal to or greater than a set value; and determine the fuel cell to have a disconnection failure when the difference is less than the set value.” in claim 4, “wherein the monitoring processor comprises: a first multiplexer (MUX) connected to the connection terminal and configured to select and output any one of signals output by the connection terminals; a second MUX; a first level shifter configured to convert a level of an output value of the first MUX; a second level shifter configured to convert a level of an output value of the second MUX; a first analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert an output value of the first level shifter into a digital signal; and a second ADC configured to convert an output value of the second level shifter into a digital signal, wherein the processor is further configured to detect a failure of the monitoring processor by comparing a first voltage value that is output through the first MUX, the first level shifter, and the first ADC and a second voltage value that is output through the second MUX, the second level shifter, and the second ADC.” in claim 5, “wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the monitoring processor to be normal when the first voltage value and the second voltage value are identical with each other or a difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value is equal to or smaller than an error range, and determine the monitoring processor to have a failure when the difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value is greater than the error range.” in claim 6, “wherein the first MUX and the second MUX are connected between the connection terminals so that the first MUX and the second MUX cross each other, and are connected to any one of the plurality of cells of the fuel cell.” in claim 7, and “wherein a measurement error is minimized by measuring a cell voltage of the fuel cell in a state in which a static current source has been connected to each of the cells of the fuel cell and an equivalent current flows into the cells of the fuel cell, monitoring the state of the fuel cell, and diagnosing a failure of the fuel cell based on the measured cell voltage.” in claim 16.
These reference, nor any other reference or combination of reference in the prior art suggest or render obvious the limitations of “wherein the monitoring processor is further configured to form a discharge path as the pull-down current having the predetermined size flows into the current source when the switch becomes on.” in claim 2, “wherein the current source comprises a static current source connected to each of the connection terminals and configured to include a current having a predetermined size flow therein regardless of a cell voltage of the fuel cell. ” in claim 3, “wherein the processor is further configured to: calculate a difference between the inter-cell voltages of the fuel cell after controlling the switch to become on; determine the fuel cell to be normal when the difference is equal to or greater than a set value; and determine the fuel cell to have a disconnection failure when the difference is less than the set value.” in claim 4, “wherein the monitoring processor
comprises: a first multiplexer (MUX) connected to the connection terminal and configured to select and output any one of signals output by the connection terminals; a second MUX; a first level shifter configured to convert a level of an output value of the first MUX; a second level shifter configured to convert a level of an output value of the second MUX; a first analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert an output value of the first level shifter into a digital signal; and a second ADC configured to convert an output value of the second level shifter into a digital signal, wherein the processor is further configured to detect a failure of the monitoring processor by comparing a first voltage value that is output through the first MUX, the first level shifter, and the first ADC and a second voltage value that is output through the second MUX, the second level shifter, and the second ADC.” in claim 5, “wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the monitoring processor to be normal when the first voltage value and the second voltage value are identical with each other or a difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value is equal to or smaller than an error range, and determine the monitoring processor to have a failure when the difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value is greater than the error range.” in claim 6, “wherein the first MUX and the second MUX are connected between the connection terminals so that the first MUX and the second MUX cross each other, and are connected to any one of the plurality of cells of the fuel cell.” in claim 7, and “wherein a measurement error is minimized by measuring a cell voltage of the fuel cell in a state in which a static current source has been connected to each of the cells of the fuel cell and an equivalent current flows into the cells of the fuel cell, monitoring the state of the fuel cell, and diagnosing a failure of the fuel cell based on the measured cell voltage.” in claim 16.
Therefore, claim 1 is allowed once the limitations of claims 2-7 and 16 are incorporated into claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights