DETAILED ACTION Claim Analysis The present application contains one active independent claim(s) (claim 1) and seven active dependent claims (claims 2 - 8). Examiner’s Comments The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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 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. Column and line ( or Paragraph Number ) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “ Figure 1, element 1 ” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly conne cted, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a specific definition of the “specific operating point at which power generating efficiency is maximized”, does not reasonably provide enablement for different definitions of what a skilled artisan might consider as ‘maximum efficiency’. I.e. the specification in Figures 2 and 4 and paragraphs 0033 – 0035 of the as-filed disclosure defines efficiency as the efficiency of the entire fuel cell system and determined by the ratio of electric output to enthalpy of inputted fuel. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. This rejection can be overcome by amending claim 1 to positively recite: “, wherein the specific operating point at which power generating efficiency is maximized is the operating point, as determined via an I-V plot, having the maximum efficiency of the entire fuel cell system based on the ratio of electric output to enthalpy of an inputted fuel”. The Examiner is open to similar language other than the above, as long as the definitions and concepts as taught in the specification are clear for defining this term in claim 1. The test of enablement is whether one skilled in the art could make and use the claimed invention coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation (See United States v. Theketronic Inc., 8 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Whether undue experimentation is required is not based upon a single factor but rather a conclusion reached by weighing many factors (See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400 and MPEP 2164.01.) (A) The breadth of the claims; The pending claims (at least the independent claims) are broad. There are many possible interpretations of what could constitute a ‘maximum efficiency’ that would potentially read on the claimed breadth, given the lack of specific calculations recited in the claims . (B) The nature of the invention; Fuel cells are not a very complex type of invention, per se , as fuel cells have been known for many years. However, there are many different formulations for controlled-based optimizations between an electric battery and a fuel cell and the Examiner acknowledges that these variations do not always yield predictable results. (C) The state of the prior art; Fuel cells are in a relatively crowded art since fuel cells have been made for many years. (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; The level of ordinary skill in the art is probably a research chemist or PhD having a minimum of two or three years of experience. (E) The level of predictability in the art; The art is relatively predictable – a good fuel cell controller will exhibit shared output of the fuel cell and battery in a known and predictable way . However, it is unclear in the art whether a skilled artisan would always understand the exact point of the claimed “specific operating point” . (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; As noted above, there some direction provided by the inventor in the disclosure of what constitutes the “specific operating point” and amendment to include this would overcome the enablement rejection . (G) The existence of working examples; and The specification does not provide working examples, but does disclose the means to obtain the “specific operating point” in at least Figures 2 and 4 . (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. A larger number of experiments would be required in order to determine what will and will not work (i.e. what is constituted by the claimed “maximum efficiency”, per se ) . It is the Examiner's contention that the interaction of the various components are likely within the skill level of a POSITA, so the interactions among the components may, or may not, present an undue burden. However, without specific limitations on exact ly what the claimed “ specific operating point at which power generation efficiency is maximized” constitutes , the Examiner deems that the breadth of the claim scope is immense relative to what is taught in the as-filed specification. Given the above analysis of the factors, which courts have determined, are critical in asserting whether a claimed invention is enabled, it must be considered that a skilled artisan would have to conduct undue and excessive experimentation in order to practice the claimed invention. Applicant is advised to positively set forth specific comparative shielding structures with definite structural limitations or to present specific arguments on the record as to why a POSITA would view the claimed limitations as enabling. Claims 1 – 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a specific definition of the “power generation efficiency average”, does not reasonably provide enablement for different definitions of what a skilled artisan might consider as ‘ power generation efficiency average ’. I.e. claims 5 and 8 define this term and, as such, are considered fully enabled . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims (claims 1 – 4, 6 and 7) . This rejection can be overcome by amending claim 1 to positively recite the limitations in claims 5 and 8 . The test of enablement is whether one skilled in the art could make and use the claimed invention coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation (See United States v. Theketronic Inc., 8 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Whether undue experimentation is required is not based upon a single factor but rather a conclusion reached by weighing many factors (See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400 and MPEP 2164.01.) (A) The breadth of the claims; The pending claims (at least the independent claims) are broad. There are many possible interpretations of what could constitute a ‘ power generation efficiency average ’ that would potentially read on the claimed breadth, given the lack of specific calculations recited in the claims. (B) The nature of the invention; Fuel cells are not a very complex type of invention, per se , as fuel cells have been known for many years. However, there are many different formulations for controlled-based optimizations between an electric battery and a fuel cell and the Examiner acknowledges that these variations do not always yield predictable results. (C) The state of the prior art; Fuel cells are in a relatively crowded art since fuel cells have been made for many years. (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; The level of ordinary skill in the art is probably a research chemist or PhD having a minimum of two or three years of experience. (E) The level of predictability in the art; The art is relatively predictable – a good fuel cell controller will exhibit shared output of the fuel cell and battery in a known and predictable way. However, it is unclear in the art whether a skilled artisan would always understand the exact point of the claimed “ power generation efficiency average ” . (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; As noted above, there some direction provided by the inventor in the disclosure of what constitutes the “ power generation efficiency average ” and amendment to include this would overcome the enablement rejection. (G) The existence of working examples; and The specification does not provide working examples, but does disclose the means to obtain the “ power generation efficiency average ” in at least claims 5 and 8 . (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. A larger number of experiments would be required in order to determine what will and will not work (i.e. what is constituted by the claimed “ power generation efficiency average ”, per se ). It is the Examiner's contention that the interaction of the various components are likely within the skill level of a POSITA, so the interactions among the components may, or may not, present an undue burden. However, without specific limitations on exactly what the claimed “power generation efficiency average ” constitutes, the Examiner deems that the breadth of the claim scope is immense relative to what is taught in the as-filed specification. Given the above analysis of the factors, which courts have determined, are critical in asserting whether a claimed invention is enabled, it must be considered that a skilled artisan would have to conduct undue and excessive experimentation in order to practice the claimed invention. Applicant is advised to positively set forth specific comparative shielding structures with definite structural limitations or to present specific arguments on the record as to why a POSITA would view the claimed limitations as enabling. 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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience. Claim s 1 – 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukami et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0328841 A1 ) in view of Ichikawa (U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0188102 A1) and Ogawa (U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0367246 A1 ). Regarding claim 1 , Fukami et al. disclose s a fuel cell system ( Title; Abstract ) for supplying electric power to a load device ( ibid ) , the fuel cell system comprising: a fuel cell ( ibid ) ; a battery ( ibid: secondary battery ) ; and a controller configured to control the fuel cell and the battery ( ibid ) , wherein the fuel cell is configured to supply generated electric power to the load device and the battery ( at least Paragraphs 0037 and 0046 – 0048 ) , the battery is configured to store electric power generated by the fuel cell and discharge stored electric power to the load device ( ibid and entire disclosure ) , and the controller is configured to control the operation of the fuel cell (FC) and secondary battery (SB) based on prescribed conditions ( e.g. in Fukami et al., to maintain the SOC of the battery between a lower and upper threshold as discussed in the citations above ). Fukami et al. fail s to disclose the specific controller operation requirements of “ cumulatively calculate … deficiency relative to the power demand ”. However, both Ichikawa ( at least Figures and Paragraphs 0051 – 0069 ) and Ogawa ( at least Figures; Title; Abstract; and Paragraphs 0015 – 0017; 0035; 0039 – 0048; and 0058 – 0059 ) teach that there are many different ways to tailor the usage rates of the FC and SB. E.g. Ichikawa teaches at least three different ‘settings’, ranging from FC only power, SB only power, and a ‘hybrid’ mode using power from both simultaneously. The Examiner notes that “FC only” mode would the claimed ‘first condition’ … that the FC alone was capable of satisfying the required load, so no discharge from the SB would be required. However, both of these references ( and Fukami et al. – see citations above ) recognize that there are times when the SB must also be discharged at the same time as the FC; i.e. the macro-state of the claimed second condition. I.e., none of the three references talk about controlling the discharge rate of the FC in terms of operating at a ‘specific operating point at which the power generation efficiency is maximized’. However, the Examiner deems that the vague and broad nature of the term ‘ specific operating point at which the power generation efficiency is maximized’ is open to any FC usage that results in the load demand being met fully; i.e. the FC is operating ‘efficiently’ in this regard, because it is meeting the required load and not producing excess, waste power. It is being ‘efficient’. Both Ichikawa and Ogawa provide support for using the FC to either supplement the SB (up to the desired load, but not ‘wasting’ the power) or vis versa and using the SB to supplement the load provided by the FC ( which is necessarily the most ‘efficient’ use of the FC as it is at its maximum output, in theory ). While the disclosed control methodologies are not identical to the claimed methodology, the Examiner deems that a skilled artisan would recognize them as functionally equivalent means to control the ‘shared’ use of a FC output and SB output for providing power to a load. Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, these are all various means to control the relative amounts of output from a FC and SB in a shared-load system and, as such, are deemed functional equivalents in the field of potential options for controlling how the two components (FC and SB) share the load requirement. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the A pplicants ’ invention to modify the device of Fukami et al. to meet the claimed controlling aspect as taught by Ichikawa and Ogawa, since even though not explicit in the prior art, the claimed process is simply an equivalent means for sharing load requirement between the FC and SB. Regarding claim 2 , as noted above, the prior art citations recognize either using the FC to make up for the excess required power from the SB or vis versa ( see citations above, but noting that the ‘battery only’ EV mode of Ichikawa is most relevant as it talks about needing to use the FC ‘as needed’ to supplement the battery output, etc. ). While not the same language as in claim 2, the Examiner deems that this teaching is sufficient to render obvious the claimed limitations as the conceptual use of the FC to “generate excess electric power that is a difference between the electric power deficiency and the permissible dischargeable power” is what is taught by the prior art. Regarding claim 3, Ogawa discloses a sub-battery, which reads on the claimed ‘sources other than the’ the FC and SB, with Ogawa disclosing it is also connected to the controller and electrical supply system ( at least Paragraphs 0018 – 0020 ). The rest of the limitations are deemed obvious for the same reasoning as set forth above with regard to claim 1 and the equivalent concepts recognized by the prior art. Regarding claim 4, all three references disclose vehicles with motors as the load devices ( see citations above and Titles/Abstracts ). In addition, the Examiner notes that regenerative power is well known in the art and would be stored in the SB ( see, for example, Ichikawa Paragraph 0070 ). As such, the Examiner deems that the claimed limitations are rendered obvious in view of the disclosures and citations set forth above. Regarding claims 6 and 7, these limitations are met for the reasons set forth above with regard to claims 3 and 4. Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while no claim has been indicated as allowable, the Examiner notes that claims 5 and 8 are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) given the concern over the enabled scope of the term “specific operating point at which power generating efficiency is maximized” as set forth in Paragraph No. 5, above. Amendments/arguments that overcome this rejection would place claims 5 and 8 into condition for allowance as the prior art of record fails to recognize controlling around the specific “specific operating point at which power generating efficiency is maximized” determined via the disclosed methodology. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1505 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET) . 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 Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1291 . 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. /KEVIN M BERNATZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785 April 1, 2026