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 Groups I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 29 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 July 2026. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1-12 being considered in the present Office action.
Claim Interpretations
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), MPEP 2114. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case the “configured to” and “when” limitation of the claims are related to what the device does and/or how the apparatus is intended to be employed (intended use); thus, these limitations will not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. The rejections detail the structural limitations positively recited in the claim that enable (or make possible) the claimed intended use.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Otsubo (JP2008291891), hereinafter Otsubo.
Regarding Claim 1, Otsubo suggests a fuel cell system, comprising: a hydrogen exhaust valve (5) provided in an outlet of a hydrogen tank (see Figs. 1-3), the hydrogen tank configured to supply hydrogen to a fuel cell stack ([0010-0011]), the hydrogen exhaust valve being configured to exhaust remaining hydrogen in the hydrogen tank to an outside ([0011, 0013]); and a controller (22, 21, Fig. 3) configured to: diagnose a fault cause (e.g., sensor 21 diagnoses flame, temperature rise, etc., see e.g., [0022]) when a fault occurs during a flight of a flying object associated with the fuel cell stack; perform an exhaust operation on the hydrogen stored in the hydrogen tank responsive to the fault cause; and control the hydrogen exhaust valve according to the exhaust operation (e.g., in response to sensor 21, current is cut between sensor 21 and heating device 22, which causes the heating device 22 to melt valve 5, thereby allow gas to exhaust to outside, [0023-0024])
The limitation “a controller configured to… when a fault occurs during a flight of a flying object associated with the fuel cell stack” does not positively recite the flying object, thus is interpreted as intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the prior art discloses the structure of the controller, sensor, connection of controller to hydrogen exhaust valve, and control of the hydrogen exhaust valve by the controller; thus, the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, thereby meeting the claim.
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) 1-2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn et al. (US 2003/0075643) in view of Otsubo (JP 2008291891), hereinafter Dunn and Otsubo.
Regarding Claim 1, Dunn suggests a flying object (e.g., aircraft 10) comprising a fuel cell (100) and a battery (e.g., 500 (510, 520, etc.)). Hydrogen is delivered to the fuel cell using a pressurized tank of hydrogen, thereby enabling production of electrical energy for the motor (200, see e.g., [0024, 0026-0028]), and the battery may be charged by the fuel cell ([0036]), wherein the fuel cell or the battery may be used as the primary power source for powering the motor (200), see e.g., [0022-0028, 0038-0039]. A master controller (515) is used to direct/control/allocate the energy from the fuel cell or the battery as necessary (e.g., primary power, backup, emergency power) to power the motor (200) based on the load/demand of the aircraft ([0035, 0043, 0046]).
Dunn does not provide any details with respect to the tank (e.g., no mention of a hydrogen exhaust valve), whether the controller is configured to diagnose a fault occurring during flight of the aircraft, whether the controller is configured to perform an exhaust operation on the hydrogen stored in the hydrogen tank responsive to the fault, or whether the controller is configured to control the hydrogen exhaust valve. However, Otsubo suggests a fuel cell system using a hydrogen tank comprising a hydrogen exhaust valve (5) provided in an outlet of a hydrogen tank (see Figs. 1-3), wherein the hydrogen tank is configured to supply hydrogen to a fuel cell stack ([0010-0011]). The hydrogen exhaust valve (5) is used to exhaust remaining hydrogen in the hydrogen tank to an outside ([0011, 0013]) by way of a controller (22, 21, Fig. 3) in instances where the controller (22, 21) diagnoses a fault cause (i.e., sensor 21 senses flame, rise in temperature, etc., see e.g., [0022]) and the controller (22, 21) performs an exhaust operation on the hydrogen stored in the hydrogen tank responsive to the fault cause; specifically, the controller controls the hydrogen exhaust valve (5) according to the exhaust operation (e.g., in response to sensor 21, current is cut between sensor 21 and heating device 22, which causes the heating device 22 to melt valve 5, thereby allow gas to exhaust to outside through hydrogen exhaust valve, [0023-0024]). The controller, hydrogen exhaust valve, and exhausting of hydrogen outside enables safety during an emergency (e.g., situations related to high temperature, fire, etc.) by preventing high pressure in the tank and preventing the tank from bursting ([0002, 0005, 0015]). Dunn would appreciated the use of a hydrogen tank comprising a hydrogen exhaust valve, a controller and sensors to diagnose a fault occurring during flight of the aircraft, wherein the controller is configured to control the hydrogen exhaust valve and performs an exhaust operation on the hydrogen stored in the hydrogen tank responsive to the fault, to prevent high pressure in the tank and prevent the tank from bursting during a fault cause (e.g., fire, high temperature), thereby ensuring safety of the tank, the fuel cell, and the aircraft comprising the hydrogen tank, as suggested by Otsubo.
Regarding Claim 2, Dunn suggests a master controller (515) in electrical communication with the fuel cell and aircraft; the controller determines and allocates power from the fuel cell based on the load/state of the aircraft ([0026, 0039-0040, 0043]). Dunn was modified by Otsubo to suggests the fuel cell system further includes a hydrogen exhaust valve (5) on the hydrogen tank, a sensor (22) on the hydrogen tank, wherein the sensor is connected to a controller which determines whether to exhaust the hydrogen gas through the hydrogen exhaust valve (5) based on readings from the sensor (22) from the standpoint of ensuring the safety of the hydrogen tank, the fuel cell, and aircraft; in other words, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the master controller of Dunn, in addition to determining and allocating power from the fuel cell to the aircraft based on load/state of the aircraft), is also capable of determining the fault cause (via the sensor on the tank) to ensure tank safety, fuel cell safety, and aircraft safety. In view of the foregoing, the modification of Dunn with Obtsubo suggests the controller (in addition to determining and allocating power from the fuel cell to the aircraft based on load/state of the aircraft) is configured to diagnose the fault cause (via the sensor) based on information on a state of the flying object (i.e., based on temperature, fire of the flying object which holds the tank), the information being received through a communication with a vehicle controller (i.e., master controller 515) for the flying object.
Regarding Claim 7, Dunn does not suggest a second control operation when the fault cause of the flying object is responsive to a defect of a vehicle body of the flying object. However, Dunn was modified by Otsubo to suggest sensors on the hydrogen tank to detect a fault (i.e., high temperature, fire) and a protective measure (i.e., opening the hydrogen exhaust valve to release hydrogen gas to the outside) in response to the sensor readings to improve safety (i.e., by suppressing a rise in pressure in the hydrogen tank, reducing the possibility of bursts due to fire, [0015]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the flying object further includes additional sensors (e.g., for high temperature and fire detection) thereon (e.g., vehicle body near the hydrogen tank) in cooperation with the master controller to detect a fault (i.e., high temperature, fire) and implement a protective measure (i.e., opening the hydrogen exhaust valve to release hydrogen gas to the outside) in response to the sensor readings to improve safety (i.e., by suppressing a rise in pressure in the hydrogen tank, reducing the possibility of bursts due to fire, [0015]), as suggested by Otsubo. In view of the foregoing, the incorporation of additional sensors on the vehicle body (e.g., near the hydrogen tank location) enables the master controller to detect a fault on the vehicle body (e.g., near the hydrogen tank) and to implement a second control operation (i.e., protective measure to exhausting hydrogen gas from the tank) when the fault cause of the flying object is responsive to a defect on the vehicle body of the flying object, thereby securing the safety of the fuel cell system (tank) and flying object.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn and Otsubo further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2019/0359199), hereinafter Yoon.
Regarding Claim 3, Dunn suggests a high voltage battery ([0036, 0040]) configured to be charged with the fuel cell stack ([0043]) and to supply a propulsion power to the flying object ([0022-0028, 0038-0039]). Dunn does not suggest regenerative braking energy of the fuel cell stack is used to charge the battery. However, Yoon suggests regenerative breaking, where the regenerative breaking energy from the fuel cell is used to charge the high voltage battery, allows for improved efficiency within a hybrid vehicle system using a fuel cell and battery as power sources, [0007-0009]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the high voltage battery of Dunn is charged with regenerative breaking energy of the fuel cell with the expectation of improved efficiency of the hybrid vehicle system, as suggested by Yoon.
Dunn’s master controller (515) directs/controls/allocates the energy from the fuel cell or the battery as necessary (e.g., primary power, backup, emergency power) to power the motor (200) based on the demand/requirements (e.g., load) of the aircraft ([0026, 0035, 0040, 0043, 0046]); the master controller selects another energy system to supply the necessary energy needed for flight when other power systems are unable to provide sufficient power to keep the aircraft in flight until a safe landing can be achieved (see e.g., [0042] in Dunn). Further, Dunn’s fuel cell system was modified by Otsubo to incorporate sensors and a hydrogen exhaust valve coordinated with hydrogen tank, and functionality to the master controller (515) to include the ability to communicate with the sensors on the hydrogen tank and hydrogen exhaust value to exhaust the hydrogen gas from the hydrogen tank to the outside according to a fault (e.g., fire, high temperature) sensed by the sensor associated with the fuel cell system, thereby securing safety of the tank, the fuel cell system, and the aircraft. In view of the foregoing, the modification of Dunn with Otsubo configures the master controller to supply propulsion power from the high voltage battery to the flying object responsive to the fault cause being a fault from the fuel cell stack; that is, the master controller, which signals the hydrogen tank to be emptied based on sensor readings in an emergency (fire, high temperature) to ensure safety, is also capable of detecting the whether the fuel cell is capable of providing sufficient power to the motor for flight; when the fuel cell is deemed insufficient for providing power to the aircraft (provided the tank was exhausted due to the tank emergency), the master controller selects another energy system capable of supplying the necessary energy needed for flight to keep the aircraft in flight until a safe landing can be achieved. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the master controller is able to determine/allocated and select the power source used to power the motor of the aircraft based on the power needs of the aircraft, recognize the fuel cell is insufficient to power the motor of the flying object based on the fault case, and accordingly allow the supply of propulsion power to the flying object using the battery in responsive to the fault cause being a fault from the fuel cell to allow a safe landing.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn, Otsubo, and Yoon further in view of Song et al. (US 2011/0273131), hereinafter Song.
Regarding Claim 4, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, Dunn as modified by Otsubo suggests the use of the battery for emergency backup to initiate a safe landing when the primary power source is deemed insufficient. Specifically, the insufficiency of the primary power source (fuel cell) was determined due to the fault cause (i.e., high temperature, fire) detected by the sensors on the hydrogen tank of the fuel cell system; in response to the fault cause (being the fuel cell stack) and need of the flying object, the master controller switches the power supply mode to a high voltage battery mode to enable a safe landing; thus, Dunn as modified by Otsubo suggests performing a first control operation. Dunn does not suggest the first control operation was based on the state of charge of the battery satisfying of a condition of being capable of flying. However, Song suggests a method to power a load using either a fuel cell system, a battery, or both. A controller (70) detects the load of the load unit (50) and determines which system (i.e., fuel cell, battery, or both) is capable of providing the power to the load; when the load is greater than the nominal power of the fuel cell stack, the controller detects the SOC of the battery, turns off the fuel cell stack based on the SOC of the battery when a condition is met (e.g., SOC compared to SOCL/SOCH), and supplies the energy from the battery to the load (50), see e.g., [0059-0060, 0063-0064, 0066-0074]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the master controller to utilize the SOC of a battery to determine whether the battery has sufficient energy to power a load.
Regarding Claim 5, Dunn, as modified by Otsubo, Yoon and Song, suggests the controller’s ability to direct, control, allocate, and switch between energy systems (fuel cell, battery (including checking the SOC)) to provide power to the flying vehicle, thereby enabling a safe landing (see rejection of claims 1 and 3-4). The modification also suggests the controllers ability to charge the battery through regenerative breaking (see rejection of claim 3). In view of the foregoing, the controller is configured to stop a charging of the high voltage battery with the regenerative braking energy of the fuel cell stack and supply the propulsion power of the flying object for an emergency landing operation of the flying object using a charging power of the high voltage battery, when the first control operation is performed.
Regarding Claim 6, Dunn suggests the master controller allocates power (of the battery, fuel cell, storage systems 500, etc.) based on the needs of the load ([0036, 0038-0040, 0042, 0046]) and suggests other systems are preferably powered by alternative power sources to preserve power for more important needs ([0043]). Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the controller is configured to: terminate an operation of a power electronic part drawing a power of the high voltage battery, when the first control operation is performed, to preserve the power of the battery for more important needs (i.e., to make a safe landing).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn and Otsubo in view of Fukuda (US 20060210853), hereinafter Fukuda.
Regarding Claim 8, as set forth under the rejection of claim 7, additional sensors on the vehicle body (e.g., near the hydrogen tank) would be obvious to ensure safety of the hydrogen tank in the flying vehicle and the flying vehicle itself from high temperature and fire. Specifically, the modification suggests a second control operation (i.e., a protective measure where hydrogen is purged to the outside) to ensure safety (e.g., suppress a rise in pressure in the hydrogen tank, reducing possibility of bursts due to fire, [0015]). Thus, the modification suggests the second control operation includes opening the hydrogen exhaust valve the valve is controlled by the controller. Thus, the modification of Dunn with Otsubo suggests the controller is configured to, during the second control operation, open the hydrogen exhaust valve to perform a purge operation of the fuel cell stack to ensure safety.
Dunn does not explicitly state the supply of hydrogen to the fuel cell is controlled by the controller, or the control of a purge valve by a controller. However, Fukuda suggests using a controller (32) to control the supply of hydrogen fuel to the fuel cell 2 (e.g., via pump 6) according to operating load of the fuel cell ([0034-0036, 0043, 0055-0056]), and to open the fuel purge valve 7, thereby removing the impurities accumulated in the hydrogen circulation passage, in response to sensor (22) measurements ([0024-0026]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the controller of Dunn controls the supply of hydrogen to the fuel cell to enable the fuel cell to power a load based on need. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the controller is able to control a purge valve to allow fuel to be purged from the system to remove impurities accumulated in the hydrogen circulation passage. In modifying Dunn with Fukuda, since the controller is connected to and controls the supply line that feeds hydrogen the fuel cell, and the controller is connected to and controls the opening/closing of the purge valve, the controller is configured to, during the second control operation, open a fuel supply valve to adjust supply of the hydrogen to the fuel cell stack and to open a purge valve to perform a purge operation for the fuel cell stack.
Regarding Claim 9, Dunn was modified by Otsuba and Fukuda to suggest control of the hydrogen exhaust valve, fuel supply valve and purge valve, thereby performing a purge operation. The time scale for the purge operation has not been addressed. However, Otsuba suggests the purge of the hydrogen from the tank is in response to a hazardous event (i.e., high temperature, fire) that would have detrimental effects on the hydrogen tank, fuel cell and flying vehicle (i.e., high pressure and bursting of tank), it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the purge operation is configured to fully discharge the hydrogen in a minimum amount of time to prevent high pressure and fire to the hydrogen tank, thereby quickly mitigating the possibility of a catastrophic event to the hydrogen tank, fuel cell, and flying vehicle.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn, Otsubo and Fukuda, further in view of Song et al. (US 2011/0273131), hereinafter Song.
Regarding Claim 10, Dunn suggests oxygen is supplied to the fuel cell either through an oxygen container or ram scoop ([0009, 0034]), but does not disclose how the supply thereof is controlled. However, Song suggests the use of a controller (70) to operate a fuel cell system (100); specifically, the oxidant supply unit (30) comprises an oxidant pump ([0050, 0053]) to enable the generation of electric power ([0054]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the controller is used to operate an air supply pump to supply air to the fuel cell stack with the expectation of generating electric power in the fuel cell. Thus, Dunn, as modified by Song, suggests the controller is configured to operate an air supply pump to supply air to the fuel cell stack to output a maximum power, when the second control operation is performed.
Regarding Claim 11, Dunn suggests the controller is used to charge the battery by way of the fuel cell, [0035-0036, 0043]; thus, the controller is configured to (capable of) charging a high voltage battery with the power generated in the fuel cell stack when the second control operation is performed.
Regarding Claim 12, based on the limitations of claim 8, the second control operation appears to include the ability of the controller to open the hydrogen exhaust valve; as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 8, the controller opens the hydrogen exhaust valve based on sensor readings. Thus, the controller is configured to perform the second control operation (i.e., open the hydrogen exhaust valve) when the fault cause of the flying object is a fault of the fuel cell stack. Further, based on the limitations of claim 8, the second control operation appears to include the ability of the controller to open a fuel supply valve to adjust supply of the hydrogen to the fuel cells stack; as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, the controller controls the flow of hydrogen to the fuel cell so that the fuel cell produces energy to operating a load (Fukuda); the controller also has the ability to monitor the state of charge of the battery and select the desired power source (e.g., fuel cell, battery), see rejection of claim 4 in view of Song. Thus, the controller is configured to perform a second control operation (i.e., flow hydrogen to the fuel cell to provide energy to a load) when a state of charge of the high voltage battery does not satisfy a condition being capable of flying driving to a remaining flight distance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights