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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 31st, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) of claim 6 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections over Yamaguchi et al. and Yamano et al. are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turlapati et al. (US 2023/0302922 A1) in view of Mai et al. (US 2014/0315114 A1) as evidenced by or in view of Salvador et al. (US 2009/0197125 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Turlapati et al. discloses a fuel cell system including a plurality of fuel cell stacks (Figs. 1-2, #12) the fuel cell system comprising a control unit (Paragraph 0012, 0033, 0059, 0063). The control unit is configured to determine whether a load that is based on an output requested by the fuel cell system is distributable unevenly (Paragraph 0126-0127); determine a load distribution that gives priority to achieving a replaced fuel cell stack such that said fuel cell stack has a higher state of charge (Paragraph 0127), and when the control unit determines that the load is not distributable unevenly, set outputs of the fuel cell stacks that are not replacement targets by evenly distributing the load among the fuel cell stacks are not replacement targets (Paragraph 0007, 0114 & 0116).
the control unit is configured to, when a part of the fuel cell stacks is replaced set a first output of a replaced fuel cell stack to differ from a second output of another unreplaced fuel cell stack (Paragraph 0005-0006, 0052-0053, 0113, 0126-0127), in the instant case Turlapati et al. discloses that the control essentially ranks the fuel cell stacks from highest to lowest based on their state of health (Paragraph 0127), and that each fuel cell stack may provide a different amount of power to meet the power demand of the vehicle (Paragraph 0113). In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a new battery replacement with a higher state of health would obviously have a higher power output than the pre-existing batteries in the system and that a newly replaced battery would provide a larger amount of power demand to the vehicle than the other unreplaced (not replacement targets) fuel cells.
So while Turlapati et al. does disclose that a replaced fuel cell stack can be operated to provide more power than the not replaced fuel cell stacks, its not explicitly disclosed that this “first output” is an output serving as an optimum operating point of the replaced fuel cell stack, the optimum operating point being a point on an I-V curve where a product of an operating voltage and an operating current is largest.
Mai et al. discloses an output of electrical power for a new fuel cell or fuel cell stack, where the maximum of the output electrical power can be recognized clearly (Fig. 3A & Paragraph 0011). Mai et al. discloses explicitly that newer fuel cells have a high output of electrical power (Fig. 3A) in comparison to an “older” fuel cell (Fig. 3B – Paragraph 0013 we can see after a battery has been operated for 20,000 hours that over time, the maximum power output of the battery is degraded – See also Paragraph 0022). Mai et al. defines that maximum power output is determined using an output voltage (Paragraph 0022) and an output current (Paragraph 0027). Mai et al. discloses that this configuration can increase the lifetime of a fuel cell stack and the effects of aging (Paragraph 0017, 0032, 0056-0062).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Turlapati et al. replaced fuel cell stack to operate a maximum power point based on the output current and output voltage of the replaced fuel cell stack for the advantages of operating a maximum power that can help increase the lifetime and ageing of the fuel cell stack.
As evidenced by Salvador et al. a maximum electrical power point of a fuel cell stack corresponds to a optimum operating point being a point on an I-V curve where a product of an operating voltage and an operating current is largest (Fig. 2, #24 - Paragraph 0007, 0009, 0020-0022, 0023). Alternatively, Salvador et al. discloses that the stack controller needs to know this relationship in accordance with power demands (Paragraph 0007) and that this method helps determine the maximum power available from a fuel cell stack (Paragraph 0002). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to arrive at a maximum electrical power point of a fuel cell stack corresponds to an optimum operating point being a point on an I-V curve where a product of an operating voltage and an operating current is largest as disclosed by Salvador et al. because a stack controller needs to know this relationship and it helps determine the maximum power available from a fuel cell stack.
In view of Claim 4, Turlapati et al, Mai et al. and Salvador et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Turlapati et al. discloses that the control unit is configured to record output characteristics of fuel cell stacks that is not replacement targets before placement of the part of the fuel cell stacks (Paragraph 0051-0052, 0098, 0106); and the control unit is configured to during or after replacement of a fuel cell stack that is a replacement target set outputs of the fuel cell stacks that are not the replacement targets by unevenly distributing a load that is base don an output requested by the fuel cell system to cause a third output of a fuel cell stack that is not relatively deteriorated to be higher than a fourth output of a fuel cell stack that is relatively deteriorated among the fuel cell stacks that are not replacement targets (Paragraph 0113, 0126-0127).
In view of Claim 6, Turlapati et al., Mai et al. and Salvador et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Turlapati et al. teaches that the control unit is configured to, when a power generation request is made from the fuel cell system after replacement of the part of the fuel cell stacks determines whether a load that is based on an output requested by the fuel cell system is distributable unevenly among fuel cell stacks that are not replacement targets (Paragraph 0113, 0126-0127), the control unit is configured to when the control unit determines that the load is distributable unevenly, set the outputs of the fuel cell stacks that are not the replacement targets by unevenly distributing the load to cause a third output of a fuel cell stack that is not relatively deteriorated to be higher than a fourth output of a fuel cell stack that is relatively deteriorated among the fuel cel stacks that are not the replacement targets (Paragraph 0113, 0126-0127 – there can be four batteries with all different outputs ranked from highest to lowest).
Turlapati et al. teaches that the control unit is configured to, when the control unit determines that the load is not distributable unevenly, set the outputs of the fuel cell stacks that are not the replacement targets by evenly distributing the load (Paragraph 0007).
In view of Claim 9, Turlapati et al., Mai et al. and Salvador et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. Turlapati et al. discloses output characteristics of fuel cell stacks that are not replacement targets can be outside air temperatures (Fig. 13, Ambient Air Temp/Pressure). Mai et al. as evidenced by Salvador et al. discloses the output characteristics of the fuel cell stacks that are not the replacement targets comprise at least one of I-V characteristics of the fuel cell stacks (Fig. 2, #24 - Paragraph 0007, 0009, 0020-0022, 0023).
Claims 5 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turlapati et al. (US 2023/0302922 A1) in view of Mai et al. (US 2014/0315114 A1) as evidenced by Salvador et al. (US 2009/0197125 A1) in view of Chen (CN-115312814-A). Chen is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 5, Turlapati et al, Mai et al. and Salvador et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Turlapati et al. teaches that the controller monitors the status of health of the fuel stacks and record (monitoring) output characteristics of fuel cells stacks (Paragraph 0005, 0012, 0130) but its not explicitly disclose that the control unit itself is determining when part of the fuel cell stacks needs to be replaced.
Chen discloses that a control unit itself is used to determine when part of a fuel cell stack needs to be replaced after receiving power generation requests (Page 2, 6th step), wherein output characteristics are recorded of the fuel cell stacks that are not replacement targets before replacement of the part of the fuel cell stacks (Page 2, Steps 1-5). Chen discloses that the invention belongs to the field of fuel cell systems and applications that advantageously consider the durability and reliability of the fuel cell system (Page 1, technical field & See contents of the invention 1st paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Turlapati et al. control unit to determine when a part of the fuel cell stack needs to be replaced via output characteristics of said fuel cell stacks for the advantage of having a more durable, stable, and reliable fuel cell system.
In view of Claim 10, Turlapati et al., Mai et al. and Salvador et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Turlapati et al. teaches that the control unit is monitoring and controlling and thus must be recording the output characteristics of the fuel cells (Paragraphs 0005, 0012, 0130). Turlapati et al. teaches that the control units can change a load on the fuel cell stacks that are not being replaced and issue power generation commands to fuel stack that are not being replaced (Paragraph 0126-0127). In regards to this occurring “before the replacement of the part of the fuel cell stacks”, this would naturally happen during the course of the fuel cell vehicles life. For example, the fuel cells age, deteriorate etc., Turlapati et al. is issuing commands to either distribute the load evenly or unevenly, sometimes the fuel cell stacks are even ranked based on their state of health. Thus, a fuel cell stack that was naturally deteriorating would have its status of health “downgraded” and thus would have had the control unit “change a load on the fuel stacks that are not the replacement targets and issue power generation commands to the fuel cell stacks that are not the replacement targets before the replacement of the part of the fuel cell stacks”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turlapati et al. (US 2023/0302922 A1) in view of Mai et al. (US 2014/0315114 A1) as evidenced by Salvador et al. (US 2009/0197125 A1) in view of Bryant et al. (US 2022/0407094 A1).
In view of Claim 8, Turlapati et al., Mai et al. and Salvador et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Turlapati et al. teaches that the control unit is configured to determine that a load is not distributable unevenly (Paragraph 0126-0127), but does not disclose that this is in response to coolant temperatures of the fuel stacks are not the replacement targets being low such that load distribution occurs at or below a lower limit power generation amount necessary for maintaining appropriate temperatures.
Bryant et al. discloses controllers for a fuel cell system analogous to Turlapati (Paragraph 0003-0006). Bryant et al. discloses that fuel cell stacks have controllers that are configured to monitor desired coolant temperatures in a fuel cell stack (Paragraph 0061) and that coolant temperatures of fuels stacks are low such that load distribution occurs at or below a lower limit power generation amount necessary for maintaining appropriate temperatures (Paragraph 0064, 0066, 0068, 0077-0079, 0083-0085). Byrant et al. discloses that this configuration can provide sufficient power while maintaining a coolant temperature within a coolant temperature threshold (Abstract) while disclosing a coolant temperature setpoint system defines a coolant temperature setpoint as is known in the art for efficient operation of a fuel cell (Paragraph 0088). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Turlapati et al. control unit respond to coolant temperatures of the fuel stacks are not the replacement targets being low such that load distribution occurs at or below a lower limit power generation amount necessary for maintaining appropriate temperatures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights