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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/25/23 has been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. T he independent claims all generally recite arrangement of a fluxgate sensor on a cathode surface at a position opposite to a measurement point on the cathode surface. This feature must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Figure 4b shows a flux gate sensor 10 , cathode surface 30 and measurement points 34 . The flux gate sensor is not located on a cathode surface, it is located outside of the fuel cell stack. The remaining figures do not illustrate the recitation in the claims. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to because it appears in figure 4b, figure indicator number 30 is showing the anode surface instead of the cathode surface as defined in paragraphs [0036] & [0040] of the instant specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0036], second line, it appears the word “ant” should be “and”. The use of the term PEMFC 30 and PEMFC 30 cathode surface appears to be inconsistently used throughout the instant specification. Is figure indicator number 30 referencing the general PEMFC or the cathode surface of the PEMFC? Only figure 4b illustrates figure indicator 30, which appears to be referencing the anode surface. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The preambles of independent claims 1, 6 & 8 should insert the word “a” before PEMFC. The body of the independent claims should insert the word “the” or “said” before PEMFC. The dependent claims which use the term “PEMFC” should also insert the word “the” or “said” before PEMFC. All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term s “ arranging a fluxgate sensor on PEMFC cathode surface and at a position opposite to a measurement point on the cathode surface ” in claim 1, “a fluxgate sensor arranged on PEMFC cathode surface and at a position opposite to a measurement point on the cathode surface” in claim 6 and “arranging a fluxgate sensor on PEMFC cathode surface and at a position opposite to a measurement point on the cathode surface” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ opposite ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As long as the prior art teaches arranging a fluxgate sensor on a surface of a fuel cell stack, it will read on the claims as recited . The dependent claims are indefinite because they inherit the indefiniteness of the independent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “ performing simulations on different PEMFC operating states, respectively; and for the simulation of each operating state, continuously measuring a magnetic field variation of a magnetic field of the measurement point changing with time by using the fluxgate sensor, so as to determine a corresponding relationship between the magnetic field variation and PEMFC operating state ” . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps as recited are observation/evaluation steps that are not integrated into a practical application . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because utilizing a fluxgate sensor for measuring is well-understood, routine and conventional . Dependent claims 9 & 10 do not provide any additional limitations that would integrate this judicial exception into a practical application. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2009/0274935 hereinafter Kikuchi . Regarding claim 1 , Kikuchi teaches a method of detecting PEMFC (proton exchange membrane fuel cell) operating state (abstract an d paragraph [0005] ) , comprising: arranging a fluxgate sensor (paragraph [0068]) on PEMFC cathode surface (paragraph [0036]) and at a position opposite to a measurement point on the cathode surface (see indefiniteness rejection above) ; when PEMFC is operating, continuously measuring a magnetic field variation of a magnetic field of the measurement point changing with time by using the fluxgate sensor; and determining PEMFC operating state according to a corresponding relationship between the magnetic field variation and PEMFC operating state (paragraphs [0084] & [0101]) . Regarding claim 2 , Kikuchi teaches t he method according to claim 1, wherein the fluxgate sensor is configured to be movable in three dimensions in a space so as to measure magnetic field variation corresponding to different measurement points on the cathode surface, respectively (figure 2, shows the fluxgate sensor 2 having different locations in a three dimensional space and paragraphs [0032]-[0036], [0042]-[0047], [0050]-[0051] & [0067] discuss different locations for the fluxgate sensor to be located in a three dimensional space ) . Regarding claim 4, Kikuchi teaches t he method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: when PEMFC is not operating, measuring a steady-state magnetic field intensity of the measurement point by using the fluxgate sensor; and wherein the continuously measuring a magnetic field variation of a magnetic field of the measurement point changing with time by using the fluxgate sensor comprises: measuring a magnetic field intensity corresponding to the measurement point at different time points by using the fluxgate sensor; and determining the magnetic field variation of the magnetic field of the measurement point changing with time based on a difference value between the magnetic field intensity measured at different time points and the steady-state magnetic field intensity (paragraphs [0101], [0113], [0118] & [0119], i.e. experimental determination disclosed reads on measurements taken when fuel cell is not operating and comparing measurements to experimental reads on different time measurements a s recited in the claim) . Regarding claim 6 , Kikuchi teaches a n apparatus of detecting PEMFC (proton exchange membrane fuel cell) operating state (abstract and paragraph [0005]) , comprising: a fluxgate sensor (paragraph [0068]) arranged on PEMFC cathode surface (paragraph [0036]) and at a position opposite to a measurement point on the cathode surface (see indefiniteness rejection above) , wherein when PEMFC is operating, the fluxgate sensor is capable of continuously measuring a magnetic field variation of a magnetic field of the measurement point changing with time, so as to determine PEMFC operating state according to the magnetic field variation (paragraphs [0084] & [0101]) . Regarding claim 8 , Kikuchi teaches a simulation method of detecting PEMFC (proton exchange membrane fuel cell) operating state (abstract and paragraph [0005]) , comprising: arranging a fluxgate sensor (paragraph [0068]) on PEMFC cathode surface (paragraph [0036]) and at a position opposite to a measurement point on the cathode surface (see indefiniteness rejection above) ; performing simulations on different PEMFC operating states, respectively; and for the simulation of each operating state, continuously measuring a magnetic field variation of a magnetic field of the measurement point changing with time by using the fluxgate sensor, so as to determine a corresponding relationship between the magnetic field variation and PEMFC operating state (paragraphs [0101], [0113] , [0118] & [0119] , i.e. experimental determination disclosed reads on simulation as recited in the claim ) . Regarding claim 10 , Kikuchi teaches t he simulation method according to claim 8, further comprising: when PEMFC is not operating, measuring a steady-state magnetic field intensity of the measurement point by using the fluxgate sensor; wherein the continuously measuring a magnetic field variation of a magnetic field of the measurement point changing with time by using the fluxgate sensor comprises: measuring a magnetic field intensity corresponding to the measurement point at different time points by using the fluxgate sensor; and determining the magnetic field variation of the magnetic field of the measurement point changing with time based on a difference value between the magnetic field intensity measured at different time points and the steady-state magnetic field intensity (paragraphs [0101], [0113], [0118] & [0119], i.e. experimental determination disclosed reads on measurements taken when fuel cell is not operating and comparing measurements to experimental reads on different time measurements a s recited in 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) 5 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi . Regarding claim 5, Kikuchi as discussed above is incorporated herein. Kikuchi further discloses known causes for differences in magnetic field variations such as excess moisture or lack of humidity paragraphs ( [0084], [0101], [0113], [0118] & [0119]) and utilizing fluxgate sensors on different locations of the fuel cell stack (figure 2, shows the fluxgate sensor 2 having different locations in a three dimensional space and paragraphs [0032]-[0036], [0042]-[0047], [0050]-[0051] & [0067] discuss different locations for the fluxgate sensor to be located in a three dimensional space ). Therefore i t would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to continually measure the PEMFC operating state, and locate the measurement point s at an air inlet, an air outlet, and a middle position between the air inlet and the air outlet and take measurements to determine which of the six factors is causing the drop in ability of the fuel cell stack to generate electricity to ensure stability of operation of the fuel cell stack (paragraph [0009]) . The claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007). It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C. Regarding claim 9, Kikuchi as discussed above is incorporated herein. Kikuchi further discloses experimentally determining different fault states of a fuel cell stack, including excess moisture or lack of humidity ([0084], [0101], [0113], [0118] & [0119]). Therefore i t would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experimentally perform simulations on a fuel cell stack , such as simulating the water flooding fault state by reducing a cathode stoichiometric ratio, and simulating the dehydration fault state by reducing a relative humidity of an input gas in order to determine which of the factors is causing the drop in ability of the fuel cell stack to generate electricity to ensure stability of operation of the fuel cell stack (paragraph [0009]) . The claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007). Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi as applied to claim s 2 and 6 above, and further in view of CN 106556811 hereinafter Hao . Kikuchi does not teach structural features of a bracket for mounting a fluxgate sensor. Hao teaches a fluxgate sensor 4 is arranged on a bracket 3 , and the bracket comprises: a base (see annotated figure 2) ; a sliding seat 32 arranged on the base, wherein the sliding seat is movable in a first direction and a second direction relative to the base; and a lifting rod arranged on the sliding seat 34 , wherein the lifting rod is movable in a third direction relative to the sliding seat, and the lifting rod is provided with the fluxgate sensor; and wherein the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction are perpendicular to each other (page 5, second full paragraph) . It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the fluxgate sensor and bracket of Hao in Kikuchi in order to provide a high-precision magnetic testing device which will provide accurate measurements (abstract and page 2 second full paragraph - Hao). Simple substitution of one known element (Hao’s fluxgate sensor mounted on a bracket) for another (Kikuchi’s fluxgate sensor) would achieve the predictable results of providing a high-precision magnetic testing device which will provide accurate measurements (abstract and page 2 second full paragraph - Hao). See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale B, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT W HODGE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2097 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-4:30 . 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 Joseph Thomas can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-8004 . 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. /ROBERT W HODGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654